Hello David, Looks like you have some duplication between your private rule set and the SARE rules:
Monday, June 7, 2004, 5:32:42 PM, you wrote: DBF> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Scott Rothgaber wrote: DBF> Ran it here and it hit half a dozen tests, but they were all add-ins DBF> (SARE, locally written, & Bayes) none of the stock distribution tests DBF> hit. So this would be an argument to keep training your Bayes and DBF> utilize new rule sources such as SARE and this list. ;) DBF> Here's the rules that it hit here: DBF> Content analysis details: (20.5 points, 6.0 required, autolearn=spam) DBF> pts rule name description DBF> ---- ---------------------- DBF> ------------------------------------------ DBF> 2.2 SARE_HEAD_SPAM Message headers used which identify spam DBF> 5.5 L_BAD_HEADERS1 Headers that ony spam uses If you check, you may find that L_BAD_HEADERS1 (based on that name) is an older version of SARE_HEAD_SPAM, which included headers we found were occasionally being used in ham. SARE_HEAD_SPAM includes ONLY headers that do not hit any ham in any of our corpora. DBF> 5.4 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% DBF> [score: 1.0000] DBF> 2.5 SARE_RD_TO_BAD_TLD URI: Redirect to bad TLD (info|cc|ws|biz) DBF> 1.4 SARE_RD_YAHOO URI: Uses unsecure Yahoo redirect DBF> 3.5 L_URI_REDIR URI redirector L_URI_REDIR is probably (based on that name) is the predecessor to the SARE_RD_ rule set, and has been superceded by the SARE_RD_* collection. Remove L_BAD_HEADERS1 and L_URI_REDIR, and your installation may be a little safer from false positives. That will drop this spam from 20.5 to around 11.5, still an obvious spam. Bob Menschel -- Best regards, Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
