On 14-Feb-2007, at 16:43, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
http://www.pbp.net/~jnichols/spam2.txt
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=12.2 required=5.0 tests=BOTNET,BOTNET_NORDNS,
HTML_FONT_BIG,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_XBL,
SARE_LWSHORTT,SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3 autolearn=spam versi
* Jonathan Nichols wrote (15/02/07 05:19):
Maciej Friedel wrote:
On 02/14/07 Jonathan wrote:
http://www.pbp.net/~jnichols/spam2.txt
0.0 BOTNET_NORDNS IP address has no PTR record
0.1 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
1.0 BAYES_50
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:41:45 -0500, Billy Huddleston wrote:
> Here is a one I've been getting.. I use a older version of spambot,
> SARE, and Network tests.. to no avail..
>
> http://www.pastebin.ca/356543
I get...
Content analysis details: (13.4 points, 4.9 required)
pts rule name
At 03:43 PM 2/14/2007, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
Ugh!
http://www.pbp.net/~jnichols/spam2.txt
I've been getting absolutely hammered with these spams. I had over
50 in my inbox this morning.
Any rulesets to deal with them? They're scoring lower and lower all
the time. The one I linked to scored
Maciej Friedel wrote:
On 02/14/07 Jonathan wrote:
http://www.pbp.net/~jnichols/spam2.txt
0.0 BOTNET_NORDNS IP address has no PTR record
0.1 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
1.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 6
Scored very highly for me
Content analysis details: (19.0 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
5.0 BOTNET Relay might be a spambot or virusbot
[botnet0.7,ip=211.48.218.
Here is a one I've been getting.. I use a older version of spambot, SARE,
and Network tests.. to no avail..
http://www.pastebin.ca/356543
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:37 PM
Subject: [SPA
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:48:44 +0100, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> Nah! You cheat! Bayes did already learn this message, right? :)
;DDD
Not intentionally... but we use bayes_auto_learn, so maybe it found it already.
Here's an idea for fun: run a "who scores the highest" competition. Put online
50
On Feb 14, 2007, at 8:48 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
From: Quinn Comendant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:18:46 +0100, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
I think SARE and some network tests are even better (scores 11.5
with
my surprising Bayes :)
I agree, mine scored it in a
From: Quinn Comendant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:18:46 +0100, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> > I think SARE and some network tests are even better (scores 11.5 with
> > my surprising Bayes :)
>
> I agree, mine scored it in a similar way:
>
> Content analysis details: (
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:18:46 +0100, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> I think SARE and some network tests are even better (scores 11.5 with
> my surprising Bayes :)
I agree, mine scored it in a similar way:
Content analysis details: (11.5 points, 4.9 required)
pts rule name descripti
From: Maciej Friedel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On 02/14/07 Jonathan wrote:
>
> > http://www.pbp.net/~jnichols/spam2.txt
>
> 0.0 BOTNET_NORDNS IP address has no PTR record
> 0.1 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML
> 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
> 1.0 BAYES_50
On 02/14/07 Jonathan wrote:
> http://www.pbp.net/~jnichols/spam2.txt
0.0 BOTNET_NORDNS IP address has no PTR record
0.1 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
1.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
[score: 0.5002]
5.0
Jonathan Nichols wrote:
Any rulesets to deal with them? They're scoring lower and lower all the
time. The one I linked to scored -2 :-(
It looks like it tripped BAYES_00. Have you been running these through
sa-learn as spam? That should help, to start.
--
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communicat
Ugh!
http://www.pbp.net/~jnichols/spam2.txt
I've been getting absolutely hammered with these spams. I had over 50 in
my inbox this morning.
Any rulesets to deal with them? They're scoring lower and lower all the
time. The one I linked to scored -2 :-(
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Joe Zitnik wrote:
> For the last few days, I've been receiving stock spam, same format as
> the other stock spam, except the spam is a gif image. Some
> randomstringofletters.gif, and a bunch of text. The random text will
> show up at the bottom of the page. The ones I'm cu
For the last few days, I've been receiving stock spam, same format as the other stock spam, except the spam is a gif image. Some randomstringofletters.gif, and a bunch of text. The random text will show up at the bottom of the page. The ones I'm currently seeing are for Golden Apple Oil and Ga
17 matches
Mail list logo
