On 01/17/2014 04:17 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/16/2014 11:26 PM, Chip M. wrote:
I just checked the last six months of my most diverse corpus,
and found: two Ham, zero spam.
Both ham were sent via different ESPs, each of mediocre
quality though with multiple legitimate (albeit Pakled-y)
customers.
One was from "Marriott Rewards" with terse SA report:
score=0.9 required=5.1 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU, FH_RANDOM_SURE, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,
HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_08, HTML_MESSAGE, URIBL_BLOCKED
One was from "MapMyRun" with terse SA report:
score=6.3 required=5.1 tests=DIET_1, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU, FH_RANDOM_SURE, HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_HTML_ONLY,
MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI, MPART_ALT_DIFF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SUBJECT_DIET
That's using SA 3.3.2 with auto-updates (at a shared webhost).
Upon request, off list I can send the Message-IDs to any
SA dev(s). If the corpse(s) would be helpful, I can ask
the domain admin for them.
I'm planning some data-mining this weekend, and would be happy
to check more data (mild brag: I finally added flagging to my
data-mining tools, so it will auto-log, even if I forget to
explicitly check). :)
- "Chip"
I don't see the value of this rule. QA doesn't look great either
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20140117-r1559048-n/FH_RANDOM_SURE/detail
Axb, it's hitting a lot of your generic corpora. Can you look at what
messages it's hitting a bit?
pillz with
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:unsubscribe-%rndhex:10-20%@%to_host%>
and other assorted spam with tons of overlap so imo, pointless.
this is yet another ancient SARE rule in 00_FVGT_File001.cf which should
probably be dropped for good.
results weren't too good in 2006 - and not getting any better
I'm all for lossing this file asap.
If we need rules to replace stuff in that file, we should get back to
work but to carry old and potentially flawed baggage seems pointless.
I'll do some checking and disable the lot.
Axb
