Scanning for Spam

[DAve]

am.lists wrote:
> Anthony,
> 
> When I obfuscated my real IP in the htm, I added 1.3 to that score
> (illegal IP 1.2.3.163 and Janet RBL). But otherwise, the kicker was
> the SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3 test... I am not sure I have that rule.
> 
> I looked on RE and don't see which group that's part of. It seems very
> effective.
> 
> UPDATE: I just received another text-only one, and it's on the URL below.
> 
> I didn't obfuscate any IPs this time, so the THIRD message would be an
> interesting test.
> 
> http://mailgw.evokeemail.com/q/20070208.htm

Message 3 scored;
Content analysis details:   (19.5 points, 5.0 required)

  pts rule name              description
--------------------------------------------------
  0.3 TO_EMPTY               To: is empty
  0.8 SARE_RMML_Stock7       BODY: SARE_RMML_Stock7
  1.7 SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3   BODY: Last week's hot stock scam
   15 BAYES_99               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
                             [score: 1.0000]
  1.7 STOCK_NAME_FVGT1       STOCK_NAME_FVGT1
  0.1 TO_CC_NONE             No To: or Cc: header

The fact I have been training on missed spam seems to be the kicker for 
me. I apparently have seen many of the same messages as you.

DAve

-- 
Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a
logo change for Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos
for other non-international holidays, but nothing for
Veterans?

Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible.