On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:53:09PM -0600, Chris 'Xenon' Hanson wrote: > And yet, sometimes the spam that makes it through is startlingly obvious. > Lots of expletives about male anatomy and the like, in plaintext mails. I > turned on the X-Spam-Report header to see how things were going. A typical > flagged "anatomical enlargement" spam might show:
Having words like "fucking", "viagra", "huge" or "penis" in a mail does not necessarily mean that the message is spam. Bayes does a great job with this kind of thing though -- if those words mean "spam" for you, then Bayes will learn that and act accordingly. If you're not using Bayes for some reason, you could write your own single-word/phrase rules that simulate the action. Generally speaking, those types of rules either have a low hit-rate or a not acceptable high FP rate, which is why they don't normally exist in the standard ruleset. > Are the rulesets here: > http://www.koders.com/noncode/fidBB2367C919EFE21595CF39216741049B8CF03958.aspx > http://www.koders.com/noncode/fid2FDA2298EF0A572237595868731E4FA234A59A55.aspx > production rulesets? If so, how would one "subscribe" to them. They > seemed to have some good ideas in them. You'd really have to ask the people who wrote them. (I've never heard of that site, fwiw.) Ideally, people who come up with ideas/rules would submit them to the SA project for general testing and (possible) inclusion in the standard ruleset. But that doesn't usually happen, unfortunately. :( -- Randomly Selected Tagline: "Cut the [network] line to your bathroom ... life will be good again." - Hal Stern
pgpMy2eb7ONmy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
