> Hi Loren,
>
> Thanks. I've tried all of Fred's rules. Got no scoring from those rules
> at all. Currently im using the following rules:
>
> 70_sare_adult.cf
> 70_sare_header0.cf
> 70_sare_html0.cf
> 70_sare_random.cf
> 70_sare_specific.cf
> 72_sare_bml_post25x.cf
> 88_FVGT_subject.cf
> antidrug.cf
> backhair.cf
> chickenpox.cf
> evilnumbers.cf
> tripwire.cf
> weeds.cf
>
> + SURBL, and bayes disabled.
>
> This is what i get:
>
> Content analysis details: (1.0 points, 5.0 required)
>
> pts rule name description
> ---- ----------------------
> --------------------------------------------------
> 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
> 0.6 DATE_IN_PAST_06_12 Date: is 6 to 12 hours before Received: date
> 0.4 FS_GAPPY_2 FS_GAPPY_2
>
> / Martin
This is strange. Admittedly I didn't run the specific spam you posted, but
it sure looked like a lot of stock phrases in it that should be good fodder.
I just looked up a few of the rules I show above from the spam I had, and I
found them in
ratware.cf (now changed to another file, I'm a bit behind on rule
updates)
70_sare_header.cf (which has more than just the header0 you have, so it
may have been another part)
72_sare_bml_post25x.cf, which has at least SARE_FWDLOOK
88_FVGT_body.cf, which it looks like you don't have.
I've got Bayes enabled, but no net tests, so we should be getting reasonably
similar scores.
All I can think is that the FVGT_body rules might help some, or something
else I don't understand is going on.
Loren
