You are better off to use a normal SpamAssassin meta rule.
{^_^}
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 9/16/05, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes indeedy. And I've been looking at Bayes scores here just a wee bit.
BAYES_99 just does not hit on ham and hits on high percentages of spam.
Even BAYES_95 does not hit ham. I go down to BAYES_80 before I hit 0.05
percent of ham.
During a two-week period recently I captured a copy of all mail that
(1) did not reach an SA score of 5+ points and (2) did not have my
personal email address in the To:/Cc: headers. I then examined the
set of SA rules that were triggered by those messages (as recorded in
the X-Spam-Status). 100% of such mail that hit BAYES_80 or more was
in fact spam; about 90% of BAYES_70 was spam. However, there were a
few BAYES_80 during the same period that *did* have my address in the
headers and that were *not* spam (and, also correctly, not tagged by
SA), so it wasn't just a matter of cranking up the score for BAYES_80.
Instead I added procmail recipies to treat as spam the combination of
"not to me" plus BAYES_[89][059] regardless of the SA point score.
That was a month ago, and I haven't had a false positive yet.
If there are any developers listening ... has anyone given any
consideration to Bugzilla #3785?
