headers - example

[Matthias Andree]

Jozef Hitzinger <hitzinger at phobos.fphil.uniba.sk> writes:

> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Boris 'pi' Piwinger wrote:
>
>> I cannot see your point. Your output just reflects what your training
>> shows. Certain constellations seem to be more unlikely in spam. That is
>> normal and intended.
>
> My point was to demonstrate what I was arguing previously (headers except
> Subject should not go into db):
>
> "195.80.171.24"                     53  0.006570  0.000000  0.000074 +
> "rcvd:mail.slovanet.sk"             52  0.006446  0.000000  0.000075 +
> "212.55.234.133"                     1  0.000124  0.000000  0.003877 +
> "rcvd:mtx1.www.ematrix.sk"           1  0.000124  0.000000  0.003877 +
> "rcvd:proxy.ematrix.sk"              1  0.000124  0.000000  0.003877 +
> "to:hotmail.com"                   266  0.029999  0.002026  0.063266 +
> "head:UTC"                         661  0.061609  0.013842  0.183460 +
>
> are neither "hammy" or "spammy" in nature. Yet they are the only on the
> hammy side of this message. How did they got there? They come from
> headers. Because I trained on full messages, including headers (current
> recommended way), they're in.

Find spam that came via that route and teach it to bogofilter :)

-- 
Matthias Andree

Encrypt your mail: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95