[Top Post] I'm actually running 2.64 (3.0 soon). Everyone, please disregard the former distraction and return to your regularly scheduled, bi-annual "subject line" debate... ;-)
Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bill Landry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 4:37 PM Subject: Re: autolearn=no flag? > At 07:26 PM 9/14/2004, Bill Landry wrote: > >I'm curious how to determine why a message gets flagged with "autolearn=no", > >as shown below: > > Well, as far as the learner was concerned it scored only whatever > NO_REAL_NAME contributes in scoreset 0 or 1. In 2.60, that's 0.339 or 0.285. > That's not high enough to learn as spam, nor low enough to learn as ham. > > Poof, no autolearn performed due to midline score. > > Then the AWL kicked in and deducted a large number of points. > > > >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_REAL_NAME > >autolearn=no > > version=2.60-spambr_20030926a > > > >Also, what does this "version=2.60-spambr_20030926a" mean? > > That's the build of SA which generated the X-Spam-Status header in > question.. It's some Brazilian localized fork if I recall. > > > This was a veryobvious pill spam message, yet it ended up with > > -5.9. Any insight would be > >greatly appreciated. > > 2.60 is now a year old has serious AWL bugs that spammers can abuse. > Upgrade to something more recent. > > Also, if your system isn't running 2.50-spambr, then make sure you're not > doing something foolish like skipping the scan for messages with > X-Spam-Status headers in them (which spammers can forge or other untrusted > systems can add). > > > >
