On 2021-04-22 02:31 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 22.04.21 14:21, Steve Dondley wrote:
pts rule name description
---- ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at
https://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust
[209.85.210.44 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-1.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
[score: 0.0000]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends
in digit
[margaretkelly866[at]gmail.com]
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser
mail
provider
[margaretkelly866[at]gmail.com]
0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
-0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3)
[209.85.210.44 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_EF Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature
from
envelope-from domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not
necessarily
valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature
from
author\'s domain
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK
signature
-0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders
This email is bit of an outlier as most of these emails will get
flagged with bayes_99 and bayes_999 but this one actually gives it
bayes_00.
My bayes filter has been trained with about 2000 examples of spam and
ham.
now, train as needed - this one as spam.
OK, so I fixed my configuration issue. So now the bayes filtering is
working when I flag an email as spam in my mail client:
Content analysis details: (4.5 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------
<snip>
1.0 BAYES_999 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99.9 to 100%
[score: 1.0000]
3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100%
[score: 1.0000]
<snip>
But as you can see, the email is still not hitting the 5.0 threshold.
I could add another point between BAYES_999 and BAYES_99 scores but that
seems reactionary. Is there a better way? Should I thrown in another
point for certain keywords in marketing emails like these?
