At 03:22 PM 6/29/2004, Ryan Moore wrote:
I just got a false positive on an email that had an inline (I think?) attachment, the kind that start with "begin 600 blah.txt" with the encoded attachment. The message hit two backhair and nine chickenpox rules as SA (v2.63 called from Amavisd-new) didn't see them as attachments.
Is this a known problem with using those rule sets in combination with the current version of SA?
From http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CustomRulesets:
Backhair.cf
Note: This is a fairly aggressive ruleset that can hit on UUencoded attachments...
I'd certainly say the problem is well known for backhair.cf.
Looking at the Chickenpox mass-check results, several of the rules have rather poor S/O, thus I'd say "mixed results" are well known for chickenpox. That's probably most of the reason why the individual chickenpox rules aren't scored very high, to prevent it from FPing a nonspam email that only hits one or two of them.
I guess what I'm wondering is that is SA not able/designed to recognize UUencoded attachments? If not, then I guess I should modify the chickenpox and backhair sets to use a meta rule so that it can only add so many points to a message.
--
Ryan Moore ---------- Perigee.net Corporation 704-849-8355 (sales) 704-849-8017 (tech) www.perigee.net
