Hi list, I just had a flood of spam coming through, which SA classified as ham. On closer inspection, it turns out that the only tests triggered for all those mails were HTML_MESSAGE and BAYES_99.
HTML messages are commonplace today (unfortunately), so they don't add anything to the score. BAYES_99 yields 3.5 points. What's curious is that in this scenario, even though SA thinks that the message is 99%-100% likely to be spam, it will always classify it as ham, and further learning does not have any noticeable effect. I know how SA scores are computed. I do wonder how that algorithm applies to the BAYES_* tests though. Don't you think BAYES_99 should yield > 5 points to trigger the threshold on default installs? Shouldn't thus BAYES_* be renormalised? -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED] spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "... alle sätze der logik sagen aber dasselbe. nämlich nichts." -- wittgenstein
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
