> > For me they can be anything from 0% to about 55%. > > It might have some effect that I only sent an > > excerpt; they vary in length. > > 90% of mine are stock spam with an attached image (which is blocked by > Outlook). Most get filtered. Some of them (about 20 per day these last > couple days) get less than 5% of a spam score in SB.
Yeah, the ones with images get snagged fairly easily; I think having an embedded image has gotten a high weighting in SB; almost none of my ham has images. I haven't seen one make it through to the inbox, at least. Some end up in the suspects folder instead of the junk folder, though. > This is the first time since installing spambayes (about 2 years ago?) > that spam is making it into my inbox several times per day. All of the > spam that makes it into my inbox is the gibberish crap spam that, I > believe, is intended to damage bayesian filters. Most messages are > determined to have a zero spam possibility percentile by SB, > which until about a month ago (even with SB 1.0.4) just never happened. > My spam was ALWAYS filtered right. Now, with these new gibberish spams > I think they're doing quite well at damaging the legitimacy of the > database. Do you think using SB to delete them makes it better or worse? I have been thinking about deleting them normally so they don't dilute my definitions, since I don't think there's any useful pattern in them for SB to twig on. Does SB count numbers of times phrases are repeated? That might help for the ones I'm getting; they usually use the same fairly long sentence or chunk at least two or three times. Quinn ~~~~~~~~~~ A person's maturity consists in having found again the seriousness one had as a child, at play. - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche ~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes Check the FAQ before asking: http://spambayes.sf.net/faq.html
