On 3/15/2016 2:01 PM, David B Funk wrote:
IE, out of the 130KB of that message, only a few dozen bytes is actually
the spam 'payload' and thus Bayes wise gets swamped by the O365 noise.
I'm considering tagging most of the O365 headers with bayes_ignore_header.
Anybody else wrestling with this? Any suggestions?
I agree with you on that one. There's a big push among colleges to push
students to use their "blessed" mailsystems. They don't want students
emailing instructors from the student's gmail account, they want the
students emailing the instructors from the college-provided gmail
account. It is incredibly wasteful of space and as a result a lot of
these students have a dozen or so email accounts they regard as
"tossaways" and they don't give a tinker's damn about using secure
passwords. And colleges aren't the only orgs getting into this
nonsense, other orgs are handing these accounts out - probably to mine
marketing data no doubt.
Bayes is useless with compromised accounts on these systems and I'm sick
of the excuses that these systems self-police, they don't.
It's foolish to throw away working rulesets and put all your eggs in the
Bayes basket. Bayes is not a panacea. I kind of feel there is a
NIH mentality among the spamassassin maintainers when it comes to
rulesets - it's like "we invented Bayes so it's the best, other
people invented rules so they aren't as good" it seems like there is
an overemphasis on throwing out rules.
Ted
