Hi,
>*-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
> >* [score: 0.]
>
> This indicates a mistrained database, which means you have trained too
> many
> spams or spam-like messages (commercial messages) as ham.
>
> Proper training of spams should help. Just keep your spam (and
Please let this sit for a while, I've discovered a fundamental issue
with my scheme of feeding messages to BAYES. Unfortunately I was
remiss, apparently, it setting up logging for some bits, so have no idea
how long this has been failing.
Sorry for the clutter.
joe a.
On 2/14/2023 5:37 PM,
On 2/14/2023 2:56 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 13.02.23 17:42, joe a wrote:
Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on
BAYES. Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way?
*-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
* [score:
I started seeing some spam today in the 1-1.5 MB range.
It's been over a year now, but for a while I was getting a huge number of
spams that were either 1143 KB or 3831 KB.
The 3831 KB variant used the same obfuscation payload as the 1143 KB spams,
they just put it in twice in a row.
I started seeing some spam today in the 1-1.5 MB range. I was surprised to
see obvious spam in my Inbox, but discovered it had no SA headers. It
turned out that my procmailrc rule was only scanning messages smaller than
700k. I boosted it to 2MB:
:0fw
* < 200
| /usr/bin/spamc -s 200
Thanks to Inbox Expo for publishing my 2 Secrets to Streamline
Cybersecurity Projects. You can read it at
https://inboxexpo.com/2-secrets-from-from-kam/ and no registration or
silliness required!
I will also be presenting the keynote and a workshop for InboxExpo.com on
February 27th. While the
