On 2022-09-25 at 13:35:51 UTC-0400 (Sun, 25 Sep 2022 13:35:51 -0400) Alex <mysqlstud...@gmail.com> is rumored to have said:
> Hi, > > I've asked variations of this question in the past, but I'm still not sure > what to do about it. Should an email with just an image attachment, with no > subject and no body be treated as spam? This is the circumstance where > users are using email as a file transfer device. > > There seems to be one irregularity with this email that causes it to be > marked as spam: > > * 1.8 MIME_IMAGE_JPG contains wrong MIME type image\\/jpg That rule is nowhere in the current standard rules or the KAM rules. If you don't like your custom local rules, only you can change them. On 2022-09-25 at 16:33:38 UTC-0400 (Sun, 25 Sep 2022 16:33:38 -0400) Alex <mysqlstud...@gmail.com> is rumored to have said: > Do we have more info on what percentage of similar messages are actually spam? https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/ has info on rule accuracy for the corpora submitted for RuleQA, which are human-classified as the controls. Of the significant STANDARD rules you cited: MPART_ALT_DIFF: 5.8% of spam, 2.4% of ham, 70% of matches are spam HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04: 0.25% of spam, 0.03% of ham, 91% of matches are spam EMPTY_MESSAGE: 0.13% of spam, 0.01% of ham, 95% of matches are spam As of the latest scores update, those together total 4.3. I suspect MPART_ALT_DIFF is incorrectly hitting no-text messages, but I have not confirmed. -- Bill Cole b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) Not Currently Available For Hire
