At 9:43 PM -0400 06/13/2013, Alex wrote:
I'd say if you have any that are hitting bayes20 or lower, your
database is not working properly and you should probably start over.
Not quite sure I want to do that... I don't really have a sufficient
corpus of mail for good training. It's working well in general, just
missing these particular entries. As I saw from your most recent
message, you're also getting low Bayes scores on some similar
examples... so it seems like these things are somewhat successful in
confusing the Bayes analysis, at least on some DBs and with some
emails (different emails confuse different DBs).
I thought you may have manually modified the body because this looks unique:
<x-html><!x-stuff-for-pete base=
Do your other FNs have this? If so, you could consider generating a
rule from it.
Almost all of my HTML FNs have this. However, almost all of my
legitimate HTML email (TNs) also have this (regardless of source,
i.e. whether it comes from a large company opt-in ad or whether it
comes from a friend's direct email). It would appear to be some sort
of XHTML email standard. Filtering on this would be disastrous, at
least for the email I receive.
Search your installation and see if the two rules even exist on your system.
The rules definitely exist on my system. I wonder if there's some
difference between running spamassassin manually on the message
versus running spamd. The message I pasted was run through
spamc/spamd. Is there something that I've misconfigured that might
cause spamd to run differently and skip some tests, that spamassassin
would manually pick up?
Thanks.
--- Amir
