Sorry if I missed it, but why such a large area for the GIF size? Or maybe I don't understand how that works... I just had 3 image spams but only one got caught by this rule. The two that didn't actually had smaller pixer coverage, ~67K.
I know this is a bit of a "quick fix" and not real scientific, but why not lower the pixel coverage area? Why did you decide on 180K? Thanks for the rule/plugin anyway - it's definitely helping! I know I can tweak it myself, but I wanted some feedback from someone who's a lot smarter about this than I am! Don -----Original Message----- From: Dallas L. Engelken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:55 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: RE: ImageInfo plugin for SA > -----Original Message----- > From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 8:35 PM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: ImageInfo plugin for SA > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 07:05:52PM -0500, Dallas L. Engelken wrote: > > > I made some major edits (1/3 smaller and also faster :) > ), but the > > > core algorithm is the same. Overall, very good from my results: > > > > Awesome... Thanks for that! But no *_MULTI_LARGO hits??? > I have tons > > of these samples (today even) > > I was just comparing the original results to the new results, and > neither have the multi hits: > > old: > 7.127 8.3265 0.0000 1.000 0.87 3.00 T_DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO > 3.646 4.2602 0.0000 1.000 0.74 3.00 T_DC_IMAGE_SPAM > 0.576 0.6732 0.0000 1.000 0.23 3.00 T_DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO > 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.16 4.00 > T_DC_GIF_MULTI_LARGO > 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.16 4.00 > T_DC_PNG_MULTI_LARGO > > new: > 7.162 8.3673 0.0000 1.000 0.93 3.00 T_DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO > 3.681 4.3010 0.0000 1.000 0.79 3.00 T_DC_IMAGE_SPAM > 0.576 0.6732 0.0000 1.000 0.24 3.00 T_DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO > 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.17 4.00 > T_DC_PNG_MULTI_LARGO > 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.17 4.00 > T_DC_GIF_MULTI_LARGO > > Aha... I think I see the problem, your cf file had a typo that I > didn't > catch (missing leading __ ...) :( the new new results: > Damn it. I see the problem on GIF_ATTACH_4P now.. > 7.162 8.3673 0.0000 1.000 0.95 3.00 T_DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO > 4.016 4.6920 0.0000 1.000 0.84 3.00 T_DC_IMAGE_SPAM > 0.666 0.7786 0.0000 1.000 0.36 4.00 > T_DC_GIF_MULTI_LARGO > 0.576 0.6732 0.0000 1.000 0.31 3.00 T_DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO > 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.25 4.00 > T_DC_PNG_MULTI_LARGO > That looks better. I guess I cant find any sliced png samples here either. Oh well, little overhead to keep it just in case, since the works done once. Dallas
