Write a custom rule to reduce it when it's from AOL. As for the recommendation that you use numbers in your name so it's unique... That's stupid. [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sounds like a spammer to mean! Subject of RE: Equipment... No spam sounding there. The combination together probably didn't help the bayes scoring much. Gary Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________ From: Pierre Thomson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 9/8/2004 5:38 AM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Unreasonable penalty for AOL addresses ending in numbers? I have had a couple of FP's recently from valid AOL users. AOL recommends appending digits to your screen name to make it unique, and many users do that. The result (sender using AOL 9.0 client, SA 2.63) is a penalty of 6.39 points right off the bat. Isn't that a bit extreme? Pierre Thomson BIC Received: from imo-m15.mx.aol.com (imo-m15.mx.aol.com [64.12.138.205]) by mail1.domain.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i882gcu10544 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:42:38 -0400 Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by imo-m15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.4.) id 4.13c.83038c (3972) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:42:29 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:42:29 EDT Subject: Re: Equipment To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1094611349" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5112 X-Local-MailScanner-Information: See www.mailscanner.info for information X-Local-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Local-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam, SpamAssassin (score=6.651, required 6, ADDR_NUMS_AT_BIGSITE 2.70, BAYES_40 -0.00, FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS 0.99, FROM_WEBMAIL_END_NUMS6 2.70, HTML_MESSAGE 0.10, NO_REAL_NAME 0.16) X-MailScanner-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Sep 2004 02:42:45.0517 (UTC) FILETIME=[8554E3D0:01C4954D]
