Thanks loren..let me invoke bayes and try it out Loren Wilton wrote: > >> Thanks for ur inputs. when i put across SA this is what i get on my pc.. >> Content analysis details: (2.3 points, 4.5 required) >> >> pts rule name description >> ---- ---------------------- >> -------------------------------------------------- >> 1.0 Local_Signup BODY: Body mentions Sign up >> 0.1 TW_TV BODY: Odd Letter Triples with TV >> 0.1 TW_VP BODY: Odd Letter Triples with VP >> 0.1 TW_YD BODY: Odd Letter Triples with YD >> 0.5 HTML_20_30 BODY: Message is 20% to 30% HTML >> 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message >> 0.5 HTML_TITLE_EMPTY BODY: HTML title contains no text > > As Theo mentioned, 2.6 is ancient. You really can't expect a set of rules > and tools written, what, 2-3 years ago? to keep up with spammer tricks > that > change every day. If 2.6 was up to it, there would have been no reason to > make the newr versions of SA! > >> 1.1 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record >> 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% >> 2.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP >> 3.9 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL > > That said, it appears that you aren't running either Bayes or network > tests. > Bayes_99 has always been a real good way to get rid of spam. Here it is > 3.5 > points. On 2.6 I think it was closer to 4.0 points or maybe more. Note > there is also another 7+ points to be had from network tests, all of which > (except maybe SPF) are available in 2.6. > > Loren > > >
-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Stock-Spam-tf2728271.html#a7610364 Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
