Bill Randle wrote:
> I don't have the OCR plugin installed, but am using the recently
> posted ImageInfo plugin. This is what I get on spam-gif-1.txt:
>
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=20.6 required=5.0
> tests=BAYES_99,DC_GIF_MULTI_LARGO,EXTRA_MPART_TYPE,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,
> HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,HTML_MESSAGE,J_CHICKENPOX_27,J_CHICKENPOX_44,
> J_CHICKENPOX_72,SARE_GIF_ATTACH,TVD_FW_GRAPHIC_ID1,
> TVD_FW_GRAPHIC_NAME_LONG,TVD_FW_GRAPHIC_NAME_MID
> autolearn=no version=3.1.2
Hmmm, OK. after adding in the ImageInfo plugin, I get the following
(from spamassassin -t):
Content analysis details: (7.4 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------
--
0.8 EXTRA_MPART_TYPE Header has extraneous Content-type:...type=
entry
1.0 SPAMPIC_ALPHA_2 Image contains many alphanumeric chars
0.8 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32 BODY: HTML: images with 2800-3200 bytes of words
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.8 SARE_GIF_ATTACH FULL: Email has a inline gif
4.0 DC_GIF_MULTI_LARGO Message contains 4 or more inline gifs with a
large area
The score of 4.0 is pretty agressive. But given your scores above, I'd
say that you have certain factors even more heavily weighted. As far as
SARE goes, I use a more conservative subset. However, the conclusion
is the same -- either I need to weight SPAMPIC_ALPHA_2 higher, or
add the ImageInfo plugin into the mix (I'll probably lower its score to
1.5 or so.)
