On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Dennis German wrote:
It seems to me that the default score of from 1.2 to 1.9,
for messages originating from URIs which are Black listed
in any of the various JP, AB, OB, PH, SC, ... lists,
should be significantly higher, perhaps nearly the default
required score of 5.0
S
It seems to me that the default score of from 1.2 to 1.9,
for messages originating from URIs which are Black listed
in any of the various JP, AB, OB, PH, SC, ... lists,
should be significantly higher, perhaps nearly the default
required score of 5.0
Some information is at http://ruleqa.spamass
Sorry to respond so late.
Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wednesday, December 20, 2006, 5:44:09 AM, Dhaval Patel wrote:
> > Hello all, I have been using spamassassin for quite some time and just
> > recently I
> > have seen some false positives. Looking at the content analysis I see tha
On Wednesday, December 20, 2006, 5:44:09 AM, Dhaval Patel wrote:
> Hello all, I have been using spamassassin for quite some time and just
> recently I have
> seen some false positives. Looking at the content analysis I see that it is
> the
> URIBL*SURBL rules that is throwing it over the edge. Wh
Kelson wrote:
> Dhaval Patel wrote:
>> 1.2 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
>> [score: 0.4999]
>
> Possibly silly and slightly off-topic question, but why are you giving
> BAYES_50 a positive score? BAYES_50 means Bayes gives it a 50/
Dhaval Patel wrote:
1.2 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
[score: 0.4999]
Possibly silly and slightly off-topic question, but why are you giving
BAYES_50 a positive score? BAYES_50 means Bayes gives it a 50/50 chance
of being eit
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:44:09 -, "Dhaval Patel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hello all, I have been using spamassassin for quite some time and just
>recently I have
>seen some false positives. Looking at the content analysis I see that it is the
>URIBL*SURBL rules that is throwing it over the e
Hello all, I have been using spamassassin for quite some time and just recently
I have
seen some false positives. Looking at the content analysis I see that it is the
URIBL*SURBL rules that is throwing it over the edge. What is surprising is that
in some
of the emails, the URI is not even in the
