On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:28:21 -0500, Andy Figueroa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thanks, Matt. That sounds like a good suggestion. > >Nigel, since you have the emails, if you could capture the debug output >in a file and post like you did the messages, perhaps someone wise could >evaluate what is going on. > >You can capture the debug output by using: >spamassassin -D -t < message1 2> debug1.txt > >Andy Figueroa > >Matt Kettler wrote: >> Andy Figueroa wrote: >>> Matt (but not just to Matt), I don't understand your reply (though I >>> am deeply in your dept for the work you do for this community). The >>> sample emails that Nigel posted are identical in content, including >>> obfuscation. I've noted the same situation. Yet, the scoring is >>> really different. On the low scoring ones, DCC and RAZOR2 didn't hit, >>> and the BAYES score is different. The main differences are in the >>> headers' different forged From and To addresses. I thought these >>> samples were worthy of deeper analysis. >> >> Well, there might be other analysis worth making. >> >> However, Nigel asked why the drugs rules weren't matching. I answered >> that question alone. >> >> Not sure why the change in razor/dcc happend. >> >> BAYES changes are easily explained by the header changes, but a deeper >> analysis would involve running through spamassassin -D bayes and looking >> at the exact tokens. >> Debug results are available on: http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam01.txt http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/debug1.txt http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam02.txt http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/debug2.txt http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam03.txt http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/debug3.txt http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam04.txt http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/debug4.txt Make of them what you will, I think I need more beer before that lot makes much sense :-D Kind regards Nigel
