Thank you. Here is a sample spam email
http://pastebin.com/m7f0d60b1
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 18:43 -0700, the same anonymous Nabble user wrote:
>> But the problem is I know that the email is absolutely spam. It should
>> identify it as spam. And for some spam emails, it gives low scores like
>> 1.8,
>> 0.3. Should I accept them as false negatives?
>
> Now this is an entirely different question than your original post.
>
> Anyway, if (a) you wonder about the scoring difference for subsequent
> runs, do as I said and provide at the very least the SA headers for both
> runs. And if (b) you are actually asking how to identify those missed
> spam, then do paste some full, raw samples to a pastebin or put them up
> a web-server and provide the link. Please do not paste or attach them
> directly to a message sent to the list.
>
> Without the samples, we can't tell you whether there are things to tweak
> to catch them.
>
>
> --
> char
> *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
> main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8?
> c<<=1:
> (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0;
> }}}
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Spamc-giving-different-scores-tp22734449p22734830.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
