>>> >>> >> I am using bayes, but it didn't catch it. I was quite surprised at >> that. > > hmmmm... > > Content analysis details: (6.3 points, 5.0 required) > > > pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- > -------------------------------------------------- > 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% > [score: 1.0000] > -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record > -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record > 1.3 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header > 1.5 BASE64_LENGTH_79_INF BODY: BASE64_LENGTH_79_INF > 0.0 MIME_BASE64_BLANKS RAW: Extra blank lines in base64 encoding > > How interesting that you are hitting the BASE64_LENGTH_79_INF rule and I'm not. I just looked and I have never triggered that rule in any spams, but I have triggered it in a couple of hams. Now why would it work for you and not for me???? hmmmmm..... I am using SA 3.2.4. By the way, that mime block is only 76 characters wide.
> > sa-update and jm sought here. without Bayes, it's missed. > > I ran sa-update just a few minutes ago and it didn't make a difference. I habitually run most of my spam through sa-learn and most of my ham too. I know it's work b/c I do have a lot of spam trigger the BAYES_99 rule (and others too). I am still surprised that I had such a low score on this one. Bayes would have been my only saving grace here too.
