On Aug 11, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Benny Pedersen <m...@junc.eu> wrote: > i created MSG_ID_INSTAFILE_BIZ and HTML_ERROR_TAGS_X_HTML , but even without > this rules its spam
It is NOW, it was not when it was originally processed, as you can see from the SA headers included in the pastebin. If you read the messages I sent earlier, the network tests did not all hit because the spam was too young (had not yet been reported to all the services). LONGWORDS also did not hit for some reason, see the second email I sent regarding this (the test seems to not work properly on MIME content). Without these, and because this is an image-based spam that evades Bayes, the message did not pass the spam threshold originally, even though it does now. My question is not whether this is spam. My question is why the new HTML_COMMENT_GIBBERISH rule only got one hit on the third comment when it should have hit all three comments... Thanks. --- Amir
