hi,
-- On Wednesday, May 5, 2004 2:20 PM -0400 Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can anyone comment as to whether it makes sense to simply score these rules to "20-ish" as well? I naively am not aware of anyone ELSE sending me MIME encoded messages other than a couple of in-house scripts that i whitelist.
Your best bet is to run the scoring against your own collection of mail and see how it does. The scores are low either because they don't indicate spam that well
I've ~1 year's worth of Bayes data for my mail. SA is just phenomenal in stopping what it should stop. Including those that are mime-wrapped as mentioned ...
I'm just curious as to _specifically_ the MIME scoring.
, or because they're always seen in conjunction with other rules that score high.
These scores show up as *tested* in a LOT of properly flagged spam ... just with a low "score" . I guess i don't completely understand why/how the "in conjunction with other rules" results in low scores. If a test is "always there" in SPAM, shouldn't it be scored HIGH, regardless of other rules?
I'm personally of the belief that any rule that never shows up in ham should have a minimum score of 1.0 -- especially ones that detect broken ratware.
Thanks!
richard
