Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0D6200D52 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 14:03:35 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id A40FB160BF8; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:03:35 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id E8DFD160BF7 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 14:03:34 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 88046 invoked by uid 500); 2 Dec 2017 13:03:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@spamassassin.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@spamassassin.apache.org Received: (qmail 88036 invoked by uid 99); 2 Dec 2017 13:03:33 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 02 Dec 2017 13:03:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id B41F718089A for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:03:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OrXk84_zvERk for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:03:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fantomas.fantomas.sk (fantomas.fantomas.sk [62.168.95.114]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id AACEF5F5F7 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:03:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fantomas.fantomas.sk (uhlar@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fantomas.fantomas.sk (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id vB2D3MYc001239 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 14:03:22 +0100 Received: (from uhlar@localhost) by fantomas.fantomas.sk (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id vB2D3LvI001238 for users@spamassassin.apache.org; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 14:03:21 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: fantomas.fantomas.sk: uhlar set sender to uhlar@fantomas.sk using -f Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 14:03:21 +0100 From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_* generating too many FP's Message-ID: <20171202130321.GA1009@fantomas.sk> Mail-Followup-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org References: <0b3bb5e1-a0fa-976a-e927-5770f367c9b5@open-t.co.uk> <20171130124503.GB19963@fantomas.sk> <2a0da3af-a3dc-4d41-2871-d84267f5f13c@open-t.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2a0da3af-a3dc-4d41-2871-d84267f5f13c@open-t.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) archived-at: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 13:03:35 -0000 >>On 28.11.17 19:39, Sebastian Arcus wrote: >>>I'm having more and more problems with the HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_* set >>>of rules recently generating false positives. >On 30/11/17 12:45, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >>those have lower scorew with BAYES and network rules enabled. >>configure BAYES and enable netowrk rules... On 01.12.17 10:17, Sebastian Arcus wrote: >Hi. I have BAYES enabled and DNSBL's enabled (I assume that's what >you mean by network rules?). I still think that a score of 1.6 is >quite a lot, considering that so many emails nowadays contain either >an embedded logo in the signature, with just a few words (in a quick >email reply, for example), or even images inserted, instead of >attached to the email. Please see below an example of a SA report: >1.6 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24 BODY: HTML: images with 2000-2400 bytes of words >2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% > [score: 0.4808] configuring BAYES includes training it, so your mail don't get 0.48 score. >2.5 PYZOR_CHECK Listed in Pyzor (http://pyzor.sf.net/) now I really wonder why you blame HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24, when BAYES_50 and PYZOR_CHECK gave you higher score each? -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory.