On Feb 14, 2007, at 8:48 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
From: Quinn Comendant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:18:46 +0100, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
I think SARE and some network tests are even better (scores 11.5
with
my surprising Bayes :)
I agree, mine scored it in a similar way:
Content analysis details: (11.5 points, 4.9 required)
pts rule name description
---- ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------
0.0 DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME Domain Keys: policy says domain signs
some mails
0.8 SARE_LWSHORTT BODY: SARE_LWSHORTT
1.7 SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3 BODY: Last week's hot stock scam
0.1 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99
to 100%
[score: 1.0000]
Nah! You cheat! Bayes did already learn this message, right? :)
Giampaolo
Then we both cheated:
(no previous learns on this one that I'm aware of)
score=13.8 required=4.5
* 0.0 DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME Domain Keys: policy says domain
signs some mails
* 2.0 BOTNET Relay might be a spambot or virusbot
* [botnet0.7,ip=211.48.218.5,maildomain=amante.ro,nordns]
* 0.8 SARE_LWSHORTT BODY: SARE_LWSHORTT
* 1.7 SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3 BODY: Last week's hot stock scam
* 0.1 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 4.2 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
* [score: 1.0000]
* 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in
bl.spamcop.net
* [Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?
211.48.218.5>]
* 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL
* [211.48.218.5 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
