> -----Original Message----- > From: Donald F. Caruana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 08:51 > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: RE: ImageInfo plugin for SA > > Sorry if I missed it, but why such a large area for the GIF > size? Or maybe I don't understand how that works... I just > had 3 image spams but only one got caught by this rule. The > two that didn't actually had smaller pixer coverage, ~67K. >
Then they were not stock gif's. The purpose of the rules I created were to knock out the stock spams... not any spam with an inline gif in it. > I know this is a bit of a "quick fix" and not real > scientific, but why not lower the pixel coverage area? Why > did you decide on 180K? > I went through a corpus of stock spams, and calculated pixel coverage on them. If you want to narrow it down, about 90% of them were between 204k-256k pixel/sq. I still have some enhancements in the works for ImageInfo functions like eval:contrast_level() -> read image data and count ratio of black/dark pixels to the number of white/light pixes. eval:dust_count() -> read image data and count the amount of dust (ie off-color pixel surrounded by like-color pixels) but these are much more involved.. dallas
