Jeff Mincy wrote: > From: Matt Kettler <mkettler...@verizon.net> > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:30:02 -0400 > > fl...@pbartels.info wrote: > > Hello, > > > > instead of disabling a lot possibly set message headers using > > "bayes_ignore_header" and ending up in strange configs like: > > > > bayes_ignore_header Return-Path > ... > > (found on the net) > Where? > > > > shouldn't SpamAssassins bayes mechanism just ignore the complete > > message header and just look at the body? > > This seems useful in my opinion. > It seems like a very misguided idea to me. > > Is there any reason to think headers make bad tokens? > Do you have any test data showing this improves your bayes accuracy? > > Yes - I think some headers make extremely bad tokens for bayes, for > example the X-Mailer/User-Agent headers. 40% of the spam I get > claims to have Microsoft Outlook as a x-Mailer. So bayes rapidly > determines that *UAMicrosoft (etc) is an extremely strong token. > These *UA tokens were enough to push a short ham message to BAYES_99. > When I added an bayes_ignore_header the score dropped to ~BAYES_40 > That seems rather extraordinarily strange. Did the messages match no other tokens at all? (ie: did you run it through spamaassassin -D bayes before and after?)
I'd be very interested in what's going on there, because it makes very little sense unless the message really matched very, very little other existing training.
