spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Hardin <>
Subject Re: 72_active scores?
Date Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:00:37 GMT
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Daniel McDonald wrote:

> I¹ve been getting a significant number of spams that are hitting on a 
> number of rules in, for example:
> DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, L_P0F_Unix=-1,
> In the past couple of days, there have been around 700 spams that matched
> one of the ADVANCE_FEE_3_NEW rules, as well as 28 messages that were most
> likely spams that were not marked.  Are we likely to see some of these rules
> scored a little higher than 0.001 anytime soon?  Or do I need to start
> tweaking the scores for the ones I find reliable?

I think I'm going to have to manually maintain the ADVANCE_FEE_*_NEW 
scores, the autoscoring doesn't seem to want to do a good job on them for 
some reason.

For now, I'd suggest something like:

   score  ADVANCE_FEE_2_NEW_MONEY  0.50
   score  ADVANCE_FEE_2_NEW_FORM   1.00
   score  ADVANCE_FEE_3_NEW        0.50
   score  ADVANCE_FEE_3_NEW_MONEY  1.00
   score  ADVANCE_FEE_4_NEW        1.50

  John Hardin KA7OHZ              FALaholic #11174     pgpk -a
  key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
   Efficiency can magnify good, but it magnifies evil just as well.
   So, we should not be surprised to find that modern electronic
   communication magnifies stupidity as *efficiently* as it magnifies
   intelligence.                                   -- Robert A. Matern
  Today: Robert Heinlein's 103rd birthday
  • Unnamed multipart/mixed (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message