John D. Hardin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, feral wrote:
>
>> Whatever the case, global bayes or not, or even bayes or not, how
>> could an email with the obvious porn words in the subject (as in
>> my examples) NOT get flagged?
>
> If bayes was mistrained to consider such words hammy, then BAYES_00
> could drag the score back down below the threshold, cancelling out the
> points added by HOT_NASTY and PORN_16.
>
> One response would be to make the HOT_NASTY and PORN_16 rules "poison
> pills" by raising their scores well above the threshold (i.e. to 20 or
> 30 or even 100) - but you would have to *really trust* those rules to
> do that.
>
> And I note that those rules didn't even hit on your first two
> examples.
>
> Both of the domains in those spams are listed in SURBL (but may not
> have been at the time you received them). URIBL network tests probably
> would have hit.
>
> So it looks to me like two major problems are present:
>
> 1) mistrained bayes
>
> 2) no network tests occurring (DNS RBLs, URI BLs, razor, etc.)
>
> And possibly:
>
> 3) not enough rules - add some from SARE?
> http://www.rulesemporium.com
>
> --
> John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HOT_NASTY,PORN_16
autolearn=no version=3.1.9
So BAYES_00 brought the score down to negative .6 ? Methinks the BAYES is
not
even functional (database absent).
How do I enable network tests?
thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/sender-name-same-as-recipient-name-tf4511807.html#a12885647
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
