RW-15 wrote: MN> As I explained, even if the rule would have fired, it adds a whopping MN> 0.1 score. It only shows teeth when combined with other findings...
RW> So, why isn't it worth scoring if it's a useful rule? Because mail with odd characters is not per se spam RW> And why score it so high with FREEMAIL? You are kidding, right? 50% of this crap comes from FREEMAIL addresses, and even more specific: 44% of this crap is delivered by aol.com. The aol deliveries have about 85% unique from@aol addresses, so they pretty much 'own' aol. RW> The danger here is that you end-up with a lot FREEMAIL && WEAK_RULE metas RW> that are prone to high-scoring FPs that BAYES_00 can't save. As most spammers try to find something other than BOTNET's at the moment, I think it's only fair to be very critical about FREEMAIL. RW> If FREEMAIL_FROM is a good indicator then score it up, and score other rules RW> on their merits. Well... in itself FREEMAIL isn't spam a priori. It's just that chances are a lot higher that it is. Hence my method of meta-ing FREEMAIL with fairly low scoring rules, like links to free blogsites, free websites, tumblr, odd punctuation in Subject rules, stuff like that. Interestingly enough the most used subject from valid freemail is "Re: " and "<none>". I don't see a problem with being picky about freemail. The only free email provider succesfully fighting _out_going spam is gmail.com. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Chickenpoxed-subjects-tp32644509p32681681.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
