I have recently upgrades from 2.x to 3.0.1 and have been watching the
scores for stuff that is real spam. I had a bunch of up-weighted scores in
2.x but I didn't move those over to the new version while I evaluated what
the new version was doing. What I don't understand are what seem to be
extremely low scores for various tests, for instance this is the report:
Content analysis details: (1.9 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name
description ----
---------------------- ---------------------------------------
0.0 HTML_40_50 BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in
message 1.9 BAYES_99
BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
[score: 1.0000]
on a message that had a content preview of:
Content preview: <a href="http://imsodamtired.com/?wid=100049";> Why b u
y from World Wide Meds?<br><br> # No Prescription
Required<br> # Discrete & Confidential
Packag i n g<br> # World Wide Shipping<br> #
Quality Generic Medi.c.ations<br> # 1 0 0 % M0ney Back Guarant e e<br>
</a> <br><br><br><br><br><br> <a
etc. (i.e. no-doubt-about-it spam) yet there are zero scores for the two
HTML tests and only! 1.9 for the BAYES_99 test. I don't run any network
tests because I'm behind a corporate firewall and they are unreliable in
this environment.
My question is why are these score so low? If 5 is a typical spam/ham
these messages should be scoring close to that based on the bayes_99
alone.
If the engine is expecting to be able to use network tests for these then
shouldn't the default scores be higher if those tests are turned off?
Rich
