On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:29:24 -0400 Bill Cole wrote: > On 26 Oct 2018, at 15:13, John wrote: > > > I just got an email from a mailing list of which i am a member (UK > > academic geophysics) which was scored at 5, mainly from a 5.5 > > contribution from KAM_BACK, described as background check SPAM. I > > have > > not managed to work out what that rule is trying to do, but it is > > the first detected oh-nasty from using the KAM rules. > > > > Clearly I can reduce the score but I am struggling to see what was > > wrong with the message, attached. > > There's nothing wrong with the message, the rule is too aggressive. > > It consists of 5 sub-rules, 3 body and 2 header for From and Subject. > Hitting any three satisfies the meta-rule.
And 'criminal' in the Subject implies a second hit on 'criminal' in the body.
