In response to my complaint of weak rules out of box: I have rtfm (INSTALL, USAGE, website). It states (step #7 in INSTALL file): ================= 7. Now, you should be ready to send some test emails and ensure everything works as expected. First, send yourself a test email that doesn't contain anything suspicious. You should receive it normally, but there will be a header containing "X-Spam-Status: No". If you are only tagging your spam, send yourself an obvious spam mail and check to be sure it is marked as spam. If your test emails don't get through to you, immediately rename your .forward file until you figure out cause of the the problem, so you don't lose incoming email. ==================
As far as I could tell, my spam email was pfs (that's pretty f%$%$king suspicious for all you acronym folks). This is what I attempted to do. Wasn't detected however. I guess my spam wasn't spammy enough. As far as my 'spam' not being from a known spammer...I'm not sure of the real relevance here, when spammers can change their email addresses willy-nilly... So step#7 basically is fubar, if I can't completely whore out an email on my own and have it detected as spam. If I need to read all SA docs to figure out what constitutes a REAL spam email, then step#7 s/probably state this. I never stated SA was a piece of [EMAIL PROTECTED] that filters 'seem' too weak (ok, maybe I could've added a 'seem' before abysmal!). Believe it or not, I have had spam as simple as my 'spam' email below. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom Meunier Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 4:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin filters seem too weak out of the box... It's not abysmal. You just don't understand it. Most people get in excess of 99% of spam with SpamAssassin. Isn't it great to know that SpamAssassin is so well geared against false positives that you're TRYING to send a spammy email and can't do it? http://www.spamassassin.org/tests.html Break a few more tests and you'll get over the threshold. Or run some of your REAL spam through it. Of course, you could write your own rule to make PEN*S 5.0 points if you like. But it's been tested thoroughly and it turns out that no, that is not an appropriate score for that test. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Klein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 1:36 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [SAtalk] SpamAssassin filters seem too weak out of the box... > > After some dyslexia in running the tests in USAGE (which > passed/failed as they should)... > > I decided to send some really annoying spam to myself. > > Basically email consisted of an all caps subject "INCREASE > YOUR PEN*S SIZE NOW!!!" and several lines in the body with > same text and a url to go to. > BTW, I didn't make the above typo in my email...I spelled the > organ part correctly. > > The best I can seem to do on my own is rate a 3.1...with 5 to reject. > > This seems a skosh weak. I mean...let's get real. The subject > alone s/have made the email rate a 5...imho. > > I will look at configuring hit rate lower, but this s/not be > necessary I think. > > Why is the rating system so abysmal? ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
