On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Kenneth Chen wrote:
> Hey Justin:
>
> Thanks for your answer! I'm curious about something else, though: does
> your procmail recipe say (in words) "Take whatever has 5 stars OR more and
> pipe it to /dev/null?" I'm wondering about that last part with the *.*.
That's what t
> I'm curious about something -- can you actually create a recipe in
> procmail to filter emails with X-Spam-Status at 20 or more to send emails
> directly to /dev/null?
Yes, it looks like a couple of people have posted them. (note: I don't do
this myself.)
> And what exactly is the difference be
Hey Justin:
Thanks for your answer! I'm curious about something else, though: does
your procmail recipe say (in words) "Take whatever has 5 stars OR more and
pipe it to /dev/null?" I'm wondering about that last part with the *.*.
And what is the difference between your ".*\(\*\*\*\*\*.*)" and
"
I'm using this on a test box at the moment.
SPAM_DIR=/var/mail/spool/quarantine/spam
LOGFILE=/tmp/spam.log
:0c
{
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Score: \*\*\*\*\*.*
$SPAM_DIR
}
The checks a copy of each message and dumps it into $SPAM_DIR if it
matches >= 5. In the end I'll make this >= 10
I'm curious about something -- can you actually create a recipe in
procmail to filter emails with X-Spam-Status at 20 or more to send emails
directly to /dev/null?
If so, what would the recipe be?
And what exactly is the difference between 'probably-spam' and
'definitely-spam' thresholds?
Thanks
> I've got a sneaking suspicion that all of us who are using scores > 5
> as the "it's spam, bin it" threshold with the stock rule values should
> really be re-running the GA locally, tuned for whatever threshold value
> we want -- i.e., you should run it with the GA configured for a threshold
> o
> As you can see, almost the same proportion of mail is scored above 5.0
> (I would expect this) - but now only a fraction of said mail is being
> blocked as spam. To get the same level of blocking on that second day,
> under 2.42, I actually have to lower the threshold from 10 to
> 6.6 - not a s
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 07:40:38PM -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I only used the first message in my spam box, one that scored highly the
> > first time around. I'm sure I could pick a half a dozen at random and see
> > similar results.
>
> So what? Like I said
Daniel Quinlan said:
> > I really don't see it that way. I really don't think just looking at the
> > false postitives and negatives is looking at the whole picture. Ignoring
> > the hits in the middle would be like ignoring successes )complete or
> > partial and only focusing on failures IMHO
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I only used the first message in my spam box, one that scored highly the
> first time around. I'm sure I could pick a half a dozen at random and see
> similar results.
So what? Like I said, it's not how individual scores change, it's how
false positives and false ne
On 13 Oct 2002, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Can anyone give me any ideas why SA is so inconsistent between different
> > releases? For example I picked a spam to test a new installation of SA
> > with. It had scored over 10 on a previous install. When the message
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Can anyone give me any ideas why SA is so inconsistent between different
> releases? For example I picked a spam to test a new installation of SA
> with. It had scored over 10 on a previous install. When the message
> arrived on my new box, it was scored at only 8.4
Can anyone give me any ideas why SA is so inconsistent between different
releases? For example I picked a spam to test a new installation of SA
with. It had scored over 10 on a previous install. When the message
arrived on my new box, it was scored at only 8.4. I downgraded to 2.40
and tried i
13 matches
Mail list logo
