Hi,

I'm wondering ... this is spam right or ?
Its score like this here:
1.5 RCVD_IN_SPAMCANNIBAL   RBL: www.spamcannibal.org
                            [72.55.156.38 listed in bl.spamcannibal.org]
 1.8 BARRACUDA_BRBL         RBL: Listed: Barracuda Reputation Block List (BRBL)
                            [72.55.156.38 listed in b.barracudacentral.org]
 3.1 RCVD_IN_JMF_BL         RBL: Sender listed in JMF-BLACK
                        [72.55.156.38 listed in hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com]
-0.1 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
-0.1 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
 0.0 BAYES_50               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
                            [score: 0.4996]
 2.2 DCC_CHECK              Listed in DCC (http://rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/)

so ... spam too me ...

But what are you complaning that it hits BAYES_99 ... thats good if its spam.

mvh

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:03 AM, LuKreme <krem...@kreme.com> wrote:
> <http://home.kreme.com/ephspam.txt>
>
> Gotten a few like this in the last day or two.  I have no idea why they are
> hitting Bayes_99.
>
> The account in question runs untagged spam through sa-learn pretty
> frequently (at least once a week, sometimes more).
>
> $ sa-learn --dump magic
> 0.000          0          3          0  non-token data: bayes db version
> 0.000          0      32600          0  non-token data: nspam
> 0.000          0      83822          0  non-token data: nham
> 0.000          0     152918          0  non-token data: ntokens
> 0.000          0 1227138323          0  non-token data: oldest atime
> 0.000          0 1232419321          0  non-token data: newest atime
> 0.000          0 1232396013          0  non-token data: last journal sync
> atime
> 0.000          0 1232396040          0  non-token data: last expiry atime
> 0.000          0          0          0  non-token data: last expire atime
> delta
> 0.000          0          0          0  non-token data: last expire
> reduction count
>
> The nspam/nham numbers are ok, aren't they?  I supposed I could run more
> messages at nham?
>
> --
> Advance and attack! Attack and destroy! Destroy and rejoice!
>
>

Reply via email to