Bug 649 - new FP rule FINANCIAL
Summary: new FP rule FINANCIAL
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Rules (show other bugs)
Version: 2.40CVS
Hardware: Other other
: P2 enhancement
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Justin Mason
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2002-08-02 19:32 UTC by Theo Van Dinter
Modified: 2002-08-28 19:57 UTC (History)
0 users



Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status
The FP that this rule fixes text/plain None Theo Van Dinter [HasCLA]

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Theo Van Dinter 2002-08-02 19:32:16 UTC
I didn't have a chance to run this through mass-check, but a quick pcregrep says
0 spam matches and 11 non-spam matches.  It doesn't match a lot, but it's
(hopefully) not likely to FP and it's the only rule I could come up with for a
FP I got today.

body FINANCIAL           
/\b(?:member\s+(?-i:NASD/SIPC)|not\s+insured\s+.{0,10}(?-i:FDIC)|(?-i:FDIC)\s+insured)/i
description FINANCIAL     Message indicates a financial institute
Comment 1 Daniel Quinlan 2002-08-02 21:08:45 UTC
Can you attach the FP including X-Spam headers?
Comment 2 Theo Van Dinter 2002-08-02 21:48:18 UTC
Created attachment 249 [details]
The FP that this rule fixes
Comment 3 Theo Van Dinter 2002-08-02 22:02:15 UTC
Subject: Re: [SAdev]  New: new FP rule FINANCIAL

On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 07:32:16PM -0700, bugzilla-daemon@hughes-family.org wrote:
> body FINANCIAL           
> /\b(?:member\s+(?-i:NASD/SIPC)|not\s+insured\s+.{0,10}(?-i:FDIC)|(?-i:FDIC)\s+insured)/i
> description FINANCIAL     Message indicates a financial institute

oops, small typo, need to escape the embedded '/':

body FINANCIAL           
/\b(?:member\s+(?-i:NASD\/SIPC)|not\s+insured\s+.{0,10}(?-i:FDIC)|(?-i:FDIC)\s+insured)/i

Comment 4 Daniel Quinlan 2002-08-03 16:24:46 UTC
Are you sure this isn't spam?  It's promotional email for a service you don't
appear to already have.  It's not even directly from etrade.com, it's p0.com
which appears to be a promotional email domain.
Comment 5 Theo Van Dinter 2002-08-03 16:33:06 UTC
Subject: Re:  new FP rule FINANCIAL

On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 04:24:46PM -0700, bugzilla-daemon@hughes-family.org wrote:
> Are you sure this isn't spam?  It's promotional email for a service you don't
> appear to already have.  It's not even directly from etrade.com, it's p0.com
> which appears to be a promotional email domain.

As I stated, it's a mail that would be considered spam were I not a
customer...  Most spammers wouldn't go stating that they're a member of
NASD or being not insurced via FDIC.

Comment 6 Daniel Quinlan 2002-08-06 13:05:56 UTC
I'm looking at this rule some more.

Did you ASK E*Trade to send you promotional offers?  I used to be an E*Trade
customer, so I know they also send News emails that contain information about
changes, improvements, etc. in addition to a few advertisements.  This does
not appear to be one of those emails.  It seems to be pure 100% unsolicited ad.
It's so unbelievably spam-like, it's hard to not call it a spam...

The other problem is that I get some hits for real spam companies as well.
(Trying to sell me their newsletter or something.)  I did get some brokerage
nonspam with it too, but I had to go further back in my email history to find
it (my current brokerage doesn't send me mail unless I ask them to).
Comment 7 Theo Van Dinter 2002-08-06 13:38:24 UTC
Subject: Re: [SAdev]  new FP rule FINANCIAL

On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 01:05:56PM -0700, bugzilla-daemon@hughes-family.org wrote:
> Did you ASK E*Trade to send you promotional offers?  I used to be an E*Trade
> customer, so I know they also send News emails that contain information about
> changes, improvements, etc. in addition to a few advertisements.  This does
> not appear to be one of those emails.  It seems to be pure 100% unsolicited ad.
> It's so unbelievably spam-like, it's hard to not call it a spam...

Since I am a customer of theirs, I may have agreed to receive this stuff,
and have never explicitly opted-out from them, I can't consider this
spam, although I agree that is very spammy in nature.  The message was
actually sent to my customer-email address for them, so ...

I'm now looking at unsubscribing from emails that aren't directly related
to my accounts.

> The other problem is that I get some hits for real spam companies as well.
> (Trying to sell me their newsletter or something.)  I did get some brokerage
> nonspam with it too, but I had to go further back in my email history to find
> it (my current brokerage doesn't send me mail unless I ask them to).

Since this was a very low-hit rule (11/12987) I wouldn't be upset if it
wasn't used.  I haven't seen spam with the NASD/FDIC statements though.

Comment 8 Justin Mason 2002-08-14 06:47:10 UTC
in cvs. changed name as there's already a FINANCIAL rule
Comment 9 Justin Mason 2002-08-15 06:50:29 UTC

OVERALL%    SPAM%  NONSPAM%    S/O   SCORE  NAME
  0.016    0.030    0.003    0.91   -1.00  T_NASD_FINANCIAL (fn, low matches)

matches spam 91% of the time, I'm afraid :(
Comment 10 Daniel Quinlan 2002-08-28 17:03:29 UTC
assigning to Justin since he handled this
(I recommend removing rule and closing bug based on results)
Comment 11 Justin Mason 2002-08-29 03:57:20 UTC
sure, sounds good to me.