https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #112 from Karsten Bräckelmann <[email protected]> 2009-10-20 04:15:03 UTC --- > anyway.... it doesn't look like that rules is good enough to supersede them: > that's a much higher FP rate! Yes. It's all Warren's fault! ;) Seriously, the new BOUNDARY one does indeed have quite some FPs, all in Warren's corpus, and he kindly provided me with the samples. Appears these are all entirely legit, though auto-generated messages. I wish MS wouldn't re-use their code like that. X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000 Anyway, I agree -- RATWARE_BOUNDARY is bad, I screwed up with too low a range between headers. One of the previous rules needs to be kept. (The massive overlap along with the introduced FNs made it drop off of the active rules.) Still wondering why there are different rule names in freqs. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
