[Spambayes] Any ideas about this one?

Francois Granger 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
>
>     http://manatee.mojam.com/~skip/junk.msg
>
>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
Clues:

*H* 0.313039016579
*S* 0.934228379963
header:Received:5 0.0854354380187
subject:: 0.110737860364
subject:. 0.744834167131
header:Importance:1 0.781318555354
to:2**6 0.844827586207
subject:this 0.898823641021
subject:Watch 0.983271375465


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 mailing list