Both mine are ham that I sent and copied myself. There's a single PDF
attachment, the MUA is User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509)
I can't provide copies of these two in particular but I could look to
see if I can reproduce it with different PDFs.
Daryl
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
The TVD_PDF_* rules are coming along, and three in particular are doing pretty
good:
0.159 0.1899 0.0000 1.000 0.70 0.00 T_TVD_PDF_27
0.160 0.1910 0.0009 0.995 0.70 0.00 T_TVD_PDF_25B
0.160 0.1910 0.0009 0.995 0.70 0.00 T_TVD_PDF_25
0.160 0.1912 0.0019 0.990 0.70 0.00 T_TVD_PDF_26
0.160 0.1912 0.0019 0.990 0.70 0.00 T_TVD_PDF_26B
0.161 0.1914 0.0038 0.981 0.70 0.00 T_TVD_PDF_26C
I could use 27, but I'd rather use 26/26C. I just want to validate the ham
entries first. Please validate that the ham hits are in fact ham, and if they
are, would it be possible to get a copy of the mail?
Thanks! :)
$ egrep 'TVD_PDF_(27|25|26)' ham-*.log | awk '{print $1, $3}'
ham-bb-jm.log /home/bbmass/rawcor/jm/ham/pub.20060302/1418
ham-cthielen.log
/home/sone/files/masscheck_request//ham-recent/1130567156.15611_1.ns1:2,S
ham-dos.log
/home/dos/Maildir/._Inbox_2007/cur/1182797935.M765745P15399V0000000000000302I00438144_95.cyan.dostech.net,S=94597:2,S
ham-dos.log
/home/dos/Maildir/._Inbox_2007/cur/1182968039.M915719P3022V0000000000000302I0043815C_14.cyan.dostech.net,S=93544:2,S
ham-zmi.log /tmp/masslearn_ham.32477.BbLiY509.mbox.2045794
ham-zmi.log /tmp/masslearn_ham.32477.BbLiY509.mbox.75112307
ham-zmi.log /tmp/masslearn_ham.32477.BbLiY509.mbox.74936271
