You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by ji...@jidanni.org on 2010/04/11 07:36:36 UTC

FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails WELL GOSH

Man you guys blew it.
*  2.5 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails
All he did was quote my CC.
It is not like he forged anything.

P.S., https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/ doesn't mention when it
itself will someday come back online after maintenance.

FreeMail: RULE (FREEMAIL_FROM) check_freemail_from
FreeMail: all from-addresses: xzzzzatw@yahoo.com.tw
FreeMail: HIT! xzzzzatw@yahoo.com.tw is freemail
rules: ran eval rule FREEMAIL_FROM ======> got hit (1)
FreeMail: RULE (__freemail_reply) check_freemail_replyto
FreeMail: From address: xzzzzatw@yahoo.com.tw
FreeMail: all body freemails: xzzzzatw@yahoo.com.tw, yyyyerliu0414@yahoo.com.tw
FreeMail: comparing xzzzzatw@yahoo.com.tw to body freemails
FreeMail: HIT! xzzzzatw@yahoo.com.tw and yyyyerliu0414@yahoo.com.tw are different freemails

!From: XX 陳 <xz...@yahoo.com.tw>
!Subject: Re: About HF SSB Freq.
!To: jidanni@jidanni.org
!Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:51:21 +0800 (CST)
!
!Thank you very much.
!
!--- 10/4/11 (日),jidanni@jidanni.org <ji...@jidanni.org> 寫道:
!
!    寄件者: jidanni@jidanni.org <ji...@jidanni.org>
!    主旨: Re: About HF SSB Freq.
!    收件者: xzzzzatw@yahoo.com.tw
!    副本: yyyyerliu0414@yahoo.com.tw
!    日期: 2010年4月11日,日,下午12:44
!
!    惟如 http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org/index.php?title=%E9%A3%9B%E8%88%AA%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86
!    都盡量不再重複其他站。

Re: FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails WELL GOSH

Posted by RW <rw...@googlemail.com>.
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:36:36 +0800
jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:

> Man you guys blew it.
> *  2.5 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails
> All he did was quote my CC.
> It is not like he forged anything.

It's not like it scored 5 points, and it did what it's supposed to do.
If it doesn't work well for you, score it down.


BTW if you turned-on BAYES it would only score 1.93 and probably be
cancelled-out by BAYES_00