Bug 6786 - near zero score for TO_EQ_FM*
Summary: near zero score for TO_EQ_FM*
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Rules (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Linux
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: Undefined
Assignee: SpamAssassin Developer Mailing List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-04-04 01:04 UTC by Lemat
Modified: 2018-02-03 17:39 UTC (History)
6 users (show)


Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Lemat 2012-04-04 01:04:47 UTC 
few days ago sa-update greatly lowered the scores for TO_EQ_FM* tests:

72_scores.cf:

previous:
score TO_EQ_FM_DIRECT_MX                    1.650 0.659 1.650 0.659
score TO_EQ_FM_HTML_DIRECT                  3.134 3.950 3.134 3.950
score TO_EQ_FM_HTML_ONLY                    2.374 3.008 2.374 3.008

current:
score TO_EQ_FM_DIRECT_MX                    0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
score TO_EQ_FM_DOM_HTML_IMG                 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
score TO_EQ_FM_DOM_HTML_ONLY                0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
score TO_EQ_FM_DOM_SPF_FAIL                 0.001 2.638 0.001 2.638
score TO_EQ_FM_HTML_DIRECT                  0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
score TO_EQ_FM_HTML_ONLY                    0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
score TO_EQ_FM_SPF_FAIL                     0.001 2.367 0.001 2.367

and I believe something is wrong with that since TO_EQ_FM* are nice enough to mark the spam I receive
Comment 1 Darxus 2012-04-04 04:23:29 UTC 
A new sa-update hasn't been generated since 2012-02-25, how did your scores change a few days ago?

Those rules are ranked pretty terribly.  Best rules are ranked 1, worst are ranked 0:

  MSECS    SPAM%     HAM%     S/O    RANK   SCORE  NAME   WHO/AGE
      0   0.5257   0.0050   0.991    0.54    0.00  TO_EQ_FM_HTML_ONLY  
      0   0.3420   0.0017   0.995    0.52    0.00  TO_EQ_FM_DIRECT_MX  
      0   0.2501   0.0011   0.996    0.51    0.00  TO_EQ_FM_HTML_DIRECT  

- http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20120403-r1308758-n&rule=%2FTO_EQ_FM&srcpath=&g=Change

Looks like all the hams hitting those three rules are in llanga's corpus.
Comment 2 Kevin A. McGrail 2012-04-04 12:09:34 UTC 
(In reply to comment #1)
> A new sa-update hasn't been generated since 2012-02-25, how did your scores
> change a few days ago?
> 
> Those rules are ranked pretty terribly.  Best rules are ranked 1, worst are
> ranked 0:
> 
>   MSECS    SPAM%     HAM%     S/O    RANK   SCORE  NAME   WHO/AGE
>       0   0.5257   0.0050   0.991    0.54    0.00  TO_EQ_FM_HTML_ONLY  
>       0   0.3420   0.0017   0.995    0.52    0.00  TO_EQ_FM_DIRECT_MX  
>       0   0.2501   0.0011   0.996    0.51    0.00  TO_EQ_FM_HTML_DIRECT  
> 
> -
> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20120403-r1308758-n&rule=%2FTO_EQ_FM&srcpath=&g=Change
> 
> Looks like all the hams hitting those three rules are in llanga's corpus.

It still has a nice S/O, though. I recommend a local scoring higher until we can get masscheck chugging along!
Comment 3 Lucian Langa 2012-04-08 23:14:28 UTC 
I fear I his those because of company generated mails.
I'm not sure but I think mails are constructed using some outdated mail library.
Anyway this should have been reflected in my corpus earlier, shoudlnt't it ?
I'm not entirely sure how to start checking on those.
Comment 4 Lemat 2012-04-11 23:51:04 UTC 
(In reply to comment #3)
> I fear I his those because of company generated mails.

those should match trusted_networks isn't it?
Comment 5 Giovanni Bechis 2018-02-03 00:34:26 UTC 
Some of those rules has been removed from 72_scores.cf some time ago, time to close this bz ?
Comment 6 Bill Cole 2018-02-03 17:39:44 UTC 
The ruleset and its scoring has evolved away from this being anything like a problem, much less a bug.