Skip Morrow wrote:
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.
well, I did a cut-paste from the pastebin page, so maybe there's a
mismatch between what I passed to sa and your message?
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.
I have spam that goes to pseudo-traps. maybe this helps Bayes.
anyway, if your SA only misses few spam, there's no need to try to
improve that with new rules.
