From: Quinn Comendant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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]
Nah! You cheat! Bayes did already learn this message, right? :) Giampaolo > 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
