Anders Norrbring wrote:
> Take a look at this message source, it doesn't get tagged at all!
Well, on my SA 2.64 install it sure gets hammered, but not by stock rules:
Content analysis details: (18.7 points, 6.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
4.0 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
[score: 1.0000]
0.6 HTML_FONT_INVISIBLE BODY: HTML font color is same as background
0.1 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
3.0 SPAMCOP_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in sc.surbl.org
[www.ihku.com.shuttinanestima-mudged.com is
blacklisted]
[in SpamCop RBL at sc.surbl.org]
3.0 WS_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in Bill's database at ws.surbl.org
[www.ihku.com.shuttinanestima-mudged.com is
blacklisted]
[in WS RBL at ws.surbl.org]
2.5 SARE_SPOOF_OURI URI: URL has items in odd places
2.5 SARE_SPOOF_COM2OTH URI: a.com.b.c
3.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
[Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?221.199.190.149>]
- Are you using Bayes? Keeping it trained?
- Are you using SURBL?
- SARE rule sets are also a big help...
regards,
Pierre Thomson
BIC
