Hello List, Friday, May 27, 2005, 12:08:46 AM, you wrote:
LMU> Bob, LMU> The Staples mention was of interest since I get their weekly "ads" LMU> to an account here. The very last one hit BAYES_50, but all the others LMU> were from BAYES_00 to (from a 3.0.1 install) BAYES_44. - Most were BAYES_20 LMU> (I looked back 4 months - how long that account's mail is kept locally; I LMU> could check archives for > 10 years, but I think I've only been getting the LMU> Staples ads for about 4 years). All scored between .5 and 2.1 points. LMU> I've seen a few ads from other vendors come much closer to the limit on LMU> the accounts used (all vendors advertising intended for me goes to unique LMU> email addresses, but they get collected by aliases in "groups" by industry LMU> and use - e.g. Staples ads don't go to the same mailbox as ads for NLOS LMU> telecom gear). Oddly, some of the most obscure technical items often score LMU> the highest; LMU> There definitity is a `style' issue at work. It appears that both LMU> some legitimate companies and people who write "copy" that looks like spam LMU> and some spammers are good at generating messages that seems to be ham to LMU> bayes. LMU> Paul Shupak LMU> [EMAIL PROTECTED] LMU> P.S. The last Staples ad was from this Monday, May 23 and (for me) hit: LMU> score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,EXCUSE_10, LMU> HTML_90_100,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04,HTML_MESSAGE,REMOVE_PAGE, LMU> URIBL_RHS_ABUSE,URI_REDIRECTOR LMU> I'd be curious is this was the same one that hit "99" for you (I had only LMU> one "44" and most were "10" or "20"). Nope. Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 17:03:08 -0400 From: Staples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on pascal.ctyme.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,CALL_FREE, CT_OFFERS_ETC,DCC_CHECK,EXCUSE_10,HTML_90_100,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04, HTML_MESSAGE,LINK_PHRASE,REMOVE_PAGE,SARE_HTML_URI_UNSUB, SP_HAM_EXTREME,URI_REDIRECTOR,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.0.3 Would have scored -2.4 without the whitelist. Actually had to go back to March to find a Staples emailing that would have flagged as spam: Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:25:18 -0500 From: Staples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on pascal.ctyme.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-89.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,CALL_FREE, CT_ACT_NOW,CT_GREAT_OFFER,CT_OFFERS_ETC,CT_OFFER_2,DCC_CHECK, EXCUSE_10,HTML_90_100,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_08,HTML_MESSAGE,LINK_PHRASE, REMOVE_PAGE,SARE_HTML_URI_UNSUB,SAVE_BUCKS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SP_SPAM_VERY, TONER,URI_REDIRECTOR,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.0.1 Without the whitelist it would have scored 10.2 Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:31:56 -0500 From: Staples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on pascal.ctyme.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-92.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,CALL_FREE, CT_ACT_NOW,CT_GREAT_OFFER,CT_OFFERS_ETC,CT_OFFER_2,DCC_CHECK, EXCUSE_10,HTML_90_100,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04,HTML_MESSAGE,LINK_PHRASE, REMOVE_PAGE,SARE_HTML_URI_UNSUB,SAVE_BUCKS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SP_SPAM_HIGH, URI_REDIRECTOR,USER_IN_WHITELIST,WHILE_SUPPLIES autolearn=no version=3.0.1 Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 07:43:08 -0500 From: Staples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on pascal.ctyme.com X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=14.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,CALL_FREE, CT_ACT_NOW,CT_OFFERS_ETC,DCC_CHECK,EXCUSE_10,HTML_90_100, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06,HTML_MESSAGE,LINK_PHRASE,REMOVE_PAGE, SARE_HTML_URI_UNSUB,SARE_REPLY_SPAMWORD0,SAVE_BUCKS,SPF_HELO_PASS, SP_SPAM_EXTREME,URI_REDIRECTOR autolearn=no version=3.0.1 This was the last one actually flagged as spam before I began the whitelist here. You'll note that BAYES_00 was correct about all of these. Bob Menschel