On 12/01/2017 11:17 AM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2)
[212.227.126.131 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
0.4 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY BODY: Multipart message mostly text/html MIME
1.6 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24 BODY: HTML: images with 2000-2400
bytes of words
2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
[score: 0.4808]
0.8 MPART_ALT_DIFF BODY: HTML and text parts are different
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
2.5 PYZOR_CHECK Listed in Pyzor (http://pyzor.sf.net/)
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at
http://www.dnswl.org/, no
trust
[212.227.126.131 listed in list.dnswl.org]
On 01/12/17 10:54, Axb wrote:
you've changed SA default scores and now complain about one which
hasn't been touched as cause for FPs?
compare the defaults with yours...
score PYZOR_CHECK 0 1.985 0 1.392 # n=0 n=2
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.0 0.8
hmmmm.... maybe you should rethink those changes.
On 01.12.17 12:23, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
Indeed, I did amend some of the default SA scores, to catch more spam
for the type of email received at this particular site. That doesn't
change the fact that 1.6 seems to me a pretty high score for a rule
which would be triggered on such a large number of ham emails. Just
saying.
You should understand that when you start tuning scores, you can get to hell
very fast. unless you do your own mass-checks and tune according to them.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.
