low scoring spam

[Charles Amstutz <ch...@infinitesys.com>]

Hello,

I keep having spam come through that hits on almost zero rules, (or very few) .  I get this is definitely possibly, but it's annoying as its obviously spam. I guess my question is, if what we have in place isn't hitting on much, then aside from learning it to Bayes, what do we do? Even that isn't enough it seems as it learns it to Bayes_50 and not Bayes_99.  Even Bayes_99 is not enough to catch it as spam typically if it doesn't trip anything else. (as it only 3.5 for Bayes_99 and many users are set to default to 4 or 5)

Re: low scoring spam

[Antony Stone <An...@spamassassin.open.source.it>]

On Friday 14 July 2017 at 15:29:38, Charles Amstutz wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I keep having spam come through that hits on almost zero rules, (or very
> few) .  I get this is definitely possibly, but it's annoying as its
> obviously spam. I guess my question is, if what we have in place isn't
> hitting on much, then aside from learning it to Bayes, what do we do?

I don't think we can really answer that until we know "what you have in 
place".

We either need to see some examples of spam (DON'T paste here - put on 
pastebin or similar and then provide a link) with all the headers so we can 
see what scores you're getting, or we at least need to know what configuration 
you have so we might be able to suggest anything that seems missing.


You help us and we might be able to help you :)

The more information you give us, the better we understand what the question 
is.



Antony.

-- 
Most people are aware that the Universe is big.

 - Paul Davies, Professor of Theoretical Physics

                                                   Please reply to the list;
                                                         please *don't* CC me.