Michael Monnerie wrote:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=4.924 tag=-999 tag2=3.5 kill=3.5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.2, NS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.708, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=4.056, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.558] X-Spam-Score: 4.924
Yes, increase the level at which an e-mail is marked as SPAM. This one got only 4.924 points, which is still below the default 5 points from where it should be marked as SPAM. A level of 3.5 is very optimistic, leading to lots of FP.
I work for an ISP and we've been running SA 2.64 at 3.5 threshold for a couple of years now. All false positives so far have been well beyond the threshold and mailing lists. Today's FP on SA 3.1 under evaluation was a personal mail.
Maybe an update to his Outlook Express could help, saves 4.056 points if his e-mail program works correctly :-)
Well, altought I can suggest it to my friend (who uses a 56k dialup BTW), I can't force the whole world to update their OE clients (they'd better switch to something better, anyway!). Even if we increase the threshold to 5, what about false positives that hit both FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK and BAYES_nm (with nm leading a >1 score). IMHO FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK is buggy, but I have too few experience with Outlook Express Message-IDs. Paolo -- | QRPp-I #707 + www.paolocravero.tk + I QRP #476 | | SpamAssassin-based email antispam/antivirus solutions | \ Italian/English-to/from-Croatian translations / \ Skype: pcravero /
