[Spambayes] Any ideas about this one?
francois.granger at free.fr
Wed Mar 26 23:35:57 EST 2003
At 14:19 -0600 on 26/03/2003, in message [Spambayes] Any ideas about
this one?, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>The message at
>scored squarely in the ham zone for me, mostly because the scoring was
>swamped by all those normally good address clues (aahz, aleax
>cosc.canterbury.ac.nz, etc). I could obviously remove "to" from my
>address_headers option. I tried doing that, which moved it up near 0.5,
>however I noticed no skip: tokens were generated:
> X-Spambayes-Classification: unsure; 0.46
> X-Spambayes-Debug: '*H*': 0.89; '*S*': 0.80;
> 'x-mailer:microsoft outlook imo, build 9.0.2416
> (9.0.2911.0)': 0.01; 'subject:pack': 0.09; 'subject:: ': 0.19;
> 'header:Message-ID:1': 0.35; 'subject:Watch': 0.75;
> 'content-type:application/x-msdownload': 0.97;
> 'filename:fname piece:exe': 0.97
>Is that related to the structure of the message (causing the attachment to
>be skipped altogether)?
Not easy to classify...
My database "thinks":
Spam probability: 0.810594681692
well, funny !
Hofstadter's Law :
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into
account Hofstadter's Law.
More information about the Spambayes