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 description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME Domain Keys: policy says domain signs some mails
0.8 SARE_LWSHORTT BODY: SARE_LWSHORTT
1.7 SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3 BODY: Last week's hot stock scam
0.1 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
[score: 1.0000]
1.6 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
[Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?211.48.218.5>]
3.9 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL
[211.48.218.5 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
Quinn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Strangecode :: Internet Consultancy
http://www.strangecode.com/
+1 530 624 4410
