You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com> on 2004/08/06 17:21:10 UTC
Re: Why is ATT.net comimg up as spam due to numeric helo? And
why is there no report attachment?
Something's fishy here.. those numbers don't add up to 5.5.
They actualy add to 3.5.
Sure there's some loss of precision due to truncation, but even adding
+0.0999 for all 12 rules that hit you only get 4.6988.
Clearly something's not right here. Perhaps the true adjustment applied by
the AWL isn't being reported correctly due to some bug and was actually
+1.9 instead of -0.1?
At 01:07 AM 8/6/2004, lists wrote:
>Content analysis details: (5.5 points, 5.0 required)
>
> pts rule name description
>---- ----------------------
>--------------------------------------------------
> 0.2 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name
> 0.7 RCVD_BY_IP Received by mail server with no name
> 3.4 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
> 0.0 HTML_80_90 BODY: Message is 80% to 90% HTML
> 0.0 HTML_BADTAG_00_10 BODY: HTML message is 0% to 10% bad tags
>-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
> [score: 0.0000]
> 1.2 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY BODY: Multipart message mostly text/html MIME
> 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
> 0.0 HTML_NONELEMENT_00_10 BODY: 0% to 10% of HTML elements are
>non-standard 2.0 MIME_MISSING_BOUNDARY RAW: MIME section missing boundary
> 0.7 MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART Spam tool pattern in MIME boundary
> 0.0 RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE Received: by and from look like IP addresses
>-0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
Re: Why is ATT.net comimg up as spam due to numeric helo? And why
is there no report attachment?
Posted by Bob Apthorpe <ap...@cynistar.net>.
Hi,
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:21:10 -0400 Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com> wrote:
> Something's fishy here.. those numbers don't add up to 5.5.
>
> They actualy add to 3.5.
>
> Sure there's some loss of precision due to truncation, but even adding
> +0.0999 for all 12 rules that hit you only get 4.6988.
>
> Clearly something's not right here. Perhaps the true adjustment applied by
> the AWL isn't being reported correctly due to some bug and was actually
> +1.9 instead of -0.1?
No, the numbers add up; it's a line-wrapping problem.
Let me reformat this to make it clearer (truncating descriptions so it
doesn't happen again...):
> At 01:07 AM 8/6/2004, lists wrote:
> >Content analysis details: (5.5 points, 5.0 required)
> >
> > pts rule name description
> >---- ----------------------
> >--------------------------------------------------
> > 0.2 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real
> > 0.7 RCVD_BY_IP Received by mail server with n
> > 3.4 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP addre
> > 0.0 HTML_80_90 BODY: Message is 80% to 90% HT
> > 0.0 HTML_BADTAG_00_10 BODY: HTML message is 0% to 10
> > -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probabilit
> > [score: 0.0000]
> > 1.2 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY BODY: Multipart message mostly
> > 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
> > 0.0 HTML_NONELEMENT_00_10 BODY: 0% to 10% of HTML elemen
> > 2.0 MIME_MISSING_BOUNDARY RAW: MIME section missing boun
> > 0.7 MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART Spam tool pattern in MIME boun
> > 0.0 RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE Received: by and from look lik
> > -0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the a
( 0.2 + 0.7 + 3.4 + 0.0 + 0.0) = 4.3
(-2.6 + 1.2 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 2.0) = 0.6
( 0.7 + 0.0 + -0.1) = 0.6
Total = 5.5
Arithmetic. Woo.
-- Bob