> I have had a couple of FP's recently from valid AOL users. AOL > recommends appending digits to your screen name to make it unique, and > many users do that. The result (sender using AOL 9.0 client, SA 2.63) > is a penalty of 6.39 points right off the bat. Isn't that a bit > extreme?
I know at my site, the ratio of valid users and phony users ending in nums is about 1000:1. If this is the same as at your site, the easiest thing to do probably would be to whitelist the users. You could also lower the score of these rules and let the other rules do their job instead. Most of the spam coming from these types of users scores in the teens to 20's anyway, so if it's legit, then SA should score accordingly, aside from the rules listed in your headers. Just my .02 Steve > > Pierre Thomson > BIC > > > Received: from imo-m15.mx.aol.com (imo-m15.mx.aol.com [64.12.138.205]) > by mail1.domain.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i882gcu10544 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:42:38 -0400 > Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > by imo-m15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.4.) id 4.13c.83038c (3972) > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:42:29 -0400 (EDT) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:42:29 EDT > Subject: Re: Equipment > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="-----------------------------1094611349" > X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5112 > X-Local-MailScanner-Information: See www.mailscanner.info for > information > X-Local-MailScanner: Found to be clean > X-Local-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam, SpamAssassin (score=6.651, > required 6, > ADDR_NUMS_AT_BIGSITE 2.70, BAYES_40 -0.00, FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS 0.99, > FROM_WEBMAIL_END_NUMS6 2.70, HTML_MESSAGE 0.10, NO_REAL_NAME 0.16) > X-MailScanner-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Sep 2004 02:42:45.0517 (UTC) > FILETIME=[8554E3D0:01C4954D] >
