Re: TVD tests?

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

Nigel Frankcom writes:
>On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 01:47:31 -0500, "Dylan Bouterse"
><dy...@corp.power1.com> wrote:
>
>>In the 80_additional.cf file I have a list of TVD* rules that are not
>>explained on the http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_1_x.html page
>>(I'm running SA 3.1.7 and up to date with sa-update). Are these new
>>rules added to SA? Most of the scores rank pretty high and I'm seeing
>>them pop up in FPs more and more.
>>
>>Dylan
>
>I Think the TVD rules are to do with gif spams. If your users use
>Outlook and stationary then FP's can be high unless  you balance the
>scores with whitelisting and/or don't scan local users.

also, if you've got some definitely-nonspam samples you can share that FP
on those rules, I'd be keen to get them so we can avoid FPs in future.

--j.

Re: TVD tests?

[Nigel Frankcom <ni...@blue-canoe.net>]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:28:18 +0000, jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason)
wrote:

>
>Nigel Frankcom writes:
>>On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 01:47:31 -0500, "Dylan Bouterse"
>><dy...@corp.power1.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In the 80_additional.cf file I have a list of TVD* rules that are not
>>>explained on the http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_1_x.html page
>>>(I'm running SA 3.1.7 and up to date with sa-update). Are these new
>>>rules added to SA? Most of the scores rank pretty high and I'm seeing
>>>them pop up in FPs more and more.
>>>
>>>Dylan
>>
>>I Think the TVD rules are to do with gif spams. If your users use
>>Outlook and stationary then FP's can be high unless  you balance the
>>scores with whitelisting and/or don't scan local users.
>
>also, if you've got some definitely-nonspam samples you can share that FP
>on those rules, I'd be keen to get them so we can avoid FPs in future.
>
>--j.

Personally I've had no problems with them, internal mail bypasses SA
anyway and the TVD tagged mail  I do see are most definitely spam.

Nigel