BAYES_00
Your Bayes filter thought there was a VERY strong indication that this
message was ham. I'd suggest the filter is in serious need of training
or else the message was extraordinarily well constructed.
{^_^}
----- Original Message -----
From: "Smart,Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Attached is the spam that got through. I changed the porn URL to not
> offend. It's a little mangled as it was forwarded by the user via
Outlook,
> and tags got mangled by my Sanitizer.
>
> I capture the headers of all files, and here is what they look like. The
> bayes = 0 is what got this through.
>
> <<Dan>>
>
> ========================================
> >From filter Wed Nov 3 01:29:14 2004
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Received: from great.amberalist.com (great.amberalist.com [209.200.9.222])
> by dalton.vul.com (Vulcan E-mail Relay) with SMTP id 56BD89BB2C
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 01:29:14 -0600 (CST)
> Received: from mail pickup service by kmanus.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
> Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:17:54 -0800
> Received: from 194.3.74.35 by by7fd.bay7.kmanus.com with HTTP;
> Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:17:54 GMT
> X-Originating-IP: [194.3.74.35]
> X-Originating-Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Bebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: XXXXX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: re: our appreciation
> Date: 3 Nov 2004 14:17:54 -0500
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-type: text/html
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on dalton.vul.com
> X-Spam-DCC: : dalton 1182; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
> X-Spam-AWL: Auto_Whitelist=
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=6.5 tests=BAYES_00,CP_RANDOMWORD_10,
> HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET,MIME_HTML_ONLY,OB_URI_RBL,
> RCVD_IN_SBL,SARE_HTML_FSIZE_1ALL,WS_URI_RBL autolearn=no
> version=2.64
> X-Spam-Level: *
> Status: RO
> X-Status:
> X-Keywords:
> X-UID: 1219
>
> ======================================
> <<Dan>>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 2:45 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Image Composition Analysis
> >
> > On Tuesday 30 November 2004 01:27 pm, Smart,Dan wrote:
> >
> > > Catching image only E-mail with pornographic images is
> > really difficult.
> > > My users are offended when they get one, and wonder how I
> > could not
> > > catch it. Explaining that the document was text, filled with bayes
> > > poison, and the one porn image with no porn words in the document
> > > doesn't seem to have much of an impression on them.
> >
> > Open the image with a text editor and challenge them to
> > determine if it is spam or not.
> >
> > Really, people this dumb should not be turned loose on the internet.
> >
> > --
> > _____________________________________
> > John Andersen
> >
>
>
