On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 22:16 -0500, Mark Johnson wrote: > I put extreme scores against emails from TW as we don't do business with > anyone from there. If it wasn't for that, this would have made it > through my system as well. I am really surprised bayes scored a 0 as it > did for the original poster. I do serious bayes training on a regular > basis. I see alot of others are getting bayes scores of 80. > > Content analysis details: (5.6 points, 5.0 required) > > pts rule name description > ---- ---------------------- > -------------------------------------------------- > 0.9 SUBJ_HAS_SPACES Subject contains lots of white space > 0.2 SUBJECT_NOVOWEL Subject: has long non-vowel letter sequence > 7.0 RELAYCOUNTRY_TW Relayed through TW > 0.2 SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID Subject contains a unique ID > -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% > [score: 0.0000] > 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message >
Well, it looks like I'll need to start learning how to write some rules to kick these. I have one person that is flooded with these kinds of messages, bunch of Yahoo and celeb porn. He sends them over asking isn't this spam obvious to block. Well, I've been browsing my caches of user mail and can't find anyone else getting slammed like this guy with these messages. Not that there aren't any I'm sure, but even people within his own domain that receive the same level of mail, can't find one. He is obviously a target, but some of this is very obvious, no? With subject like 'Jennifer Garner showing tits and booty in the shower fbeqxunqpwpjauxekoyx' and body containing... www(dot)prnceleb(dot)com now," Malfoy went on. of metal, and tnlffifuubqrnvrrtneekyntauypuqlecgwjaihf Is this some new variant we're having to deal with? -- Robert
