On 2013-07-24 14:41, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:04:36 +0200 > JK4 wrote: > >> On 2013-07-24 13:31, RW wrote: > This isn't a GTUBE email, it's an email with lots of innocuous text and the > obfuscated name of a drug claiming to be a GTUBE email. > http://spamassassin.apache.org/gtube/ [1] [2] If it wasn't previously getting > any BAYES result then presumably it was short-circuiting on something. > Perhaps the previous mail was a real GTUBE mail short-circuiting on GTUBE - > although I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that. This is a GTUBE test > email I'm using to test if rules I wrote fired. I just don't know why this > started hitting bayes zero all of a sudden. As I already said, it's *not* a GTUBE test email. Take a look at the definition in [2] and then take a look at the email you posted in [1]. Even if it were there's no reason Bayes should recognise a GTUBE mail as spam unless it's been trained to recognise them. SpamAssassin will recognise a GTUBE email, but there's no reason why each of its individual components should be aware of GTUBE. > Links: ------ [1] http://pastebin.com/5N0xhWms [2] [2] > http://spamassassin.apache.org/gtube/ [1] I rewrote this (not GTUBE anymore) and had the same bayes score http://pastebin.com/ATqch32Y [3] Links: ------ [1] http://spamassassin.apache.org/gtube/ [2] http://pastebin.com/5N0xhWms [3] http://pastebin.com/ATqch32Y
