On 30/11/17 12:45, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 28.11.17 19:39, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I'm having more and more problems with the HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_* set of rules recently generating false positives.

Plenty of business emails will include a logo at the bottom - and not everybody is a graphics expert to make their logo a tiny optimised gif or png - so some of these are slightly bigger than they should be.

However, this seems to be sufficiently wide spread. Also, many business emails can be just a few words reply - so the ratio of words to images triggers the filter in SA. Could the scores on HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_* set of rules be lowered a bit - or is there anything else to be done - aside from educating all the internet on optimising logos in the email signatures? :-)

those have lower scorew with BAYES and network rules enabled.
configure BAYES and enable netowrk rules...

Hi. I have BAYES enabled and DNSBL's enabled (I assume that's what you mean by network rules?). I still think that a score of 1.6 is quite a lot, considering that so many emails nowadays contain either an embedded logo in the signature, with just a few words (in a quick email reply, for example), or even images inserted, instead of attached to the email. Please see below an example of a SA report:

-0.2 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2      RBL: Average reputation (+2)
                            [212.227.126.131 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
0.4 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY       BODY: Multipart message mostly text/html MIME
1.6 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24     BODY: HTML: images with 2000-2400 bytes of words
2.0 BAYES_50               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
                             [score: 0.4808]
0.8 MPART_ALT_DIFF         BODY: HTML and text parts are different
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
2.5 PYZOR_CHECK            Listed in Pyzor (http://pyzor.sf.net/)
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE     RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no
                             trust
                             [212.227.126.131 listed in list.dnswl.org]

Reply via email to