On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 09:28:08 +0100 Torsten Bronger wrote: > Hallöchen! > > Bill Cole writes: > > > [...] > > > > Indicates that someone has sabotaged your SA scores. Those are > > entirely insane scores for those tests. If the default values were > > used, that message would not have been misclassified. > > I myself set those values, almost 10 years ago. They have served > very well through those times with 15.000 spams/year. And in the > first two years, I even inspected all spam mails and had not a > single false positive.
Then you've been very lucky. I find that that combination of razor rules hits about 50% of my spam; it would be astonishing if that didn't come with some FPs. The frequency of FPs can be very erratic without a lot of users to average over. > > And don't trust whoever set your BAYES and RAZOR scores to have > > anything to do with your spam control. > > Well, I don't trust Razor anymore! If there is such a thing as "the > opposite of spam", then these mails. Besides, I personally see no > point in a crowdsourcing tool with scores on the level of > "HTML_IMAGE_ONLY". That's a gross exaggeration of the problem. With your scores you could drop the combined scores of the razor rules to 9 points and avoid the FPs - that's still over twice your threshold. If you really feel the need to score these rule such that they can't be saved by BAYES_00 you might have a Bayes database that needs retraining. However, the cause of the Razor FPs is the link that starts: http://bronger-jmp... it seems that appspotDOTcom, or any sub-domain on it, causes those razor rules to fire. Simply removing that dead-link from your signature will prevent those FPs.
