Hi,
Rocco Scappatura wrote:
I get the following:
Content analysis details: (5.7 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------
0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
1.7 SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3 BODY: Last week's hot stock scam
0.4 HTML_30_40 BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability
is 99 to 100%
[score: 1.0000]
0.0 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html
MIME parts
Assuming this is your score line:
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.5 required=5.0
> tests=AWL,BAYES_50,HTML_30_40,
> HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TEXT_AFTER_BODY,MIME_HTML_ONLY,SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3
> autolearn=no version=3.1.8
Then the biggest difference is that my Bayesian scoring gives it a
BAYES_99 score and your's gives it a BAYES_50 score.
--
Anthony Peacock
CHIME, Royal Free & University College Medical School
WWW: http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an
idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us
will have two ideas." -- George Bernard Shaw
