Nope, you're not. Marc's first example line quoted by Mouss hit 4 different spam rules for the same error, for a total of 9.3 points. Odd that the original post by Marc did't get flagged.
The reference to perkel.com.rb ..... outht to flag 1 hit, not 4 for the same line in the email! If any one of these rules had not piled on, BAYES_00 would have brought the score down to a non-spam level. On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 22:06 +0200, arni wrote: > am i the only one getting a pretty solid false positive on the previous > post? > > X-Spam-Report: > * 0.0 DKIM_POLICY_SIGNSOME Domain Keys Identified Mail: policy says > domain > * signs some mails > * 2.5 SARE_SPOOF_COM2COM URI: a.com.b.com > * 2.0 SPOOF_COM2OTH URI: URI contains ".com" in middle > * 2.5 SARE_SPOOF_COM2OTH URI: a.com.b.c > * 2.3 SPOOF_COM2COM URI: URI contains ".com" in middle and end > * -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% > * [score: 0.0000] -- Lindsay Haisley | "In an open world, | PGP public key FMP Computer Services | who needs Windows | available at 512-259-1190 | or Gates" | http://pubkeys.fmp.com http://www.fmp.com | |
