mouss wrote:
Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m16055c85
Content analysis details: (9.6 points, 6.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------
1.5 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL
blocklist
[URIs: diroma.us]
0.5 SPF_HELO_FAIL SPF: HELO does not match SPF record (fail)
[SPF failed: Please see
http://www.openspf.org/Why?id=mail4.go-concepts.com&ip=10.1.5.17&receive
r=proxy.intern.seceidos.de]
0.0 NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP URI: Uses a dotted-decimal IP address in URL
2.8 UNWANTED_LANGUAGE_BODY BODY: Message written in an undesired
language
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
[score: 0.5000]
1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level
above 50%
[cf: 100]
2.0 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/)
0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50%
[cf: 100]
0.7 SARE_BANK_URI_IP SARE_BANK_URI_IP
0.1 CRM114_CHECK CRM114: message is UNSURE with crm114-score
-2.0200
unwanted language
It was not on uribl/surbl when OP sent it, and "unwanted language"
isn't appropriate for everybody. I ran a test on the first (when OP
sent it) and it scored a little less than 5 (I don't remember if DCC
was hit, but razor was).
It really doesn't matter to me whether it was on urisbl/surbl when he
sent it. I provided what our server marked this as as an example of
rules that he could look at as to why it was scored low. Other people
that don't use "unwanted language" may not need it, but in some cases it
helps, specifically this case. I ran a test on our log and could not
find one incident of hitting the "unwanted" rule, so maybe he should use
it. I also stated that bayes would help mostly in the cases he provided.
thanks.
rcr
