[linux-elitists] (tmda) Re: Constraining Bogus challenges.

Aaron Lehmann aaronl@vitelus.com
Fri Oct 3 13:14:12 PDT 2003


On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 12:17:33PM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>   - It uses a broad range of metrics.  Unlike virtually every other spam
>     classifier or rejection system I'm aware of, SA covers:  RBLs,
>     Razor/known spam, content, context, message metadata, sender,
>     recipient, associated history.  It's highly adaptable.  These to me
>     are signs of software which _is_ fundamentally pointed in the right
>     direction.

By the way, what does it take for the stock configuration to mark
something as spam?

I get some very nasty recurring spams which get these results:

X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.7 required=5.0
        tests=BAYES_99,DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_50_60,MIME_HTML_ONLY,          
              MISSING_MIMEOLE,MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME

Something tells me the Bayes weights are way too low by default.
bogofilter would have thrown that very quickly. However, I never get
false positives and don't want to start now. Has anyone found a good
balance?



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list