"Darren Coleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bit of an oddity that this got tagged as spam, obviously the XBL test
> pushed it way over the threshold...
> [...]
> -0.0 BAYES_44 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 44 to 50%
> [score: 0.4565]
> 3.7 FVGT_u_BZ_TLD URI: FVGT - Contains a URL in the BZ or TC
> top-level domain
> 4.9 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL
> [209.237.227.199 listed in
1. no XBL-listed host was used
$ rblcheck -c -s sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org 209.237.227.199 212.113.196.225
209.237.227.199 not RBL filtered by sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
212.113.196.225 not RBL filtered by sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
2. Seems more like the FVGT_u_BZ_TLD rule is what pushed it over. If a
rule marks .bz2 filenames as being from the .BZ domain, I can only
guess it was not widely tested. A default install, even with the
bizarre RCVD_IN_XBL hit which still makes no sense, would have had a
score of 4.9 or better.
My 3.0.0-rc1 install had this to say (in real-time, I had already
installed it) about the message:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
version=3.0.0-rc1
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
