RE: Test and Keep spam

>-Original Message- >From: Duncan Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 12:11 PM >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >Subject: Re: Test and Keep spam > > >On Monday 13 December 2004 16:58, Kenneth Porter might have typed: >> --On Mon

Re: Test and Keep spam

--On Monday, December 13, 2004 5:10 PM + Duncan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Enable URIBLs and you should probably start catching it. URIBL's were enabled. I checked my SA folder and found one on the 7th, so I'm wondering if something broke in looking them up. That was the day I rebooted

Re: Test and Keep spam

On Monday 13 December 2004 16:58, Kenneth Porter might have typed: > --On Monday, December 13, 2004 5:08 AM -0800 Loren Wilton > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Flurry of which? No attachment, at least here. > > Sorry, I see so many of these (5 a day or more) that I assume everyone's > been flood

Re: Test and Keep spam

--On Monday, December 13, 2004 5:08 AM -0800 Loren Wilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Flurry of which? No attachment, at least here. Sorry, I see so many of these (5 a day or more) that I assume everyone's been flooded by them. Example attached.--- Begin Message --- 

Re: Test and Keep spam

Flurry of which? No attachment, at least here. Loren

Test and Keep spam

I got a flurry of these this morning, and they keep coming back. Has anyone come up with some good rules for these? Obviously both "test" and "keep" in the subject line. What else? The overall HTML structure looks pretty consistent, so perhaps something that matches on that pattern? I'm seeing a

Re: Test and Keep spam

Kenneth Porter wrote: Been getting a bunch of these lately, and they're falling on either side of the 5.0 margin. Two that came in under 5.0 today have unusual characteristics: The Bayes score on one is 60% and scores higher than one with an 80% Bayes score. You can see my current "uncaught" cor

Test and Keep spam

Been getting a bunch of these lately, and they're falling on either side of the 5.0 margin. Two that came in under 5.0 today have unusual characteristics: The Bayes score on one is 60% and scores higher than one with an 80% Bayes score. You can see my current "uncaught" corpus here: