Nope, you're not.

Marc's first example line quoted by Mouss hit 4 different spam rules for
the same error, for a total of 9.3 points. Odd that the original post
by Marc did't get flagged.

The reference to perkel.com.rb ..... outht to flag 1 hit, not 4 for the
same line in the email! If any one of these rules had not piled on,
BAYES_00 would have brought the score down to a non-spam level.

On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 22:06 +0200, arni wrote:
> am i the only one getting a pretty solid false positive on the previous
> post?
>
> X-Spam-Report:
> * 0.0 DKIM_POLICY_SIGNSOME Domain Keys Identified Mail: policy says domain
> * signs some mails
> * 2.5 SARE_SPOOF_COM2COM URI: a.com.b.com
> * 2.0 SPOOF_COM2OTH URI: URI contains ".com" in middle
> * 2.5 SARE_SPOOF_COM2OTH URI: a.com.b.c
> * 2.3 SPOOF_COM2COM URI: URI contains ".com" in middle and end
> * -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
> * [score: 0.0000]

--
Lindsay Haisley | "In an open world, | PGP public key
FMP Computer Services | who needs Windows | available at
512-259-1190 | or Gates" | http://pubkeys.fmp.com
http://www.fmp.com | |