Re: [SAtalk] Re: False positives

2004-01-03 Thread Nix
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Bob Proulx stated: >> My publication is double-opted in by 15,000 families with children with >> autism. ... but not by mine, nor will it be. I prefer to read newsletters written by people who reasearch before they sound off. > Statements such as that during an introduction o

Re: [SAtalk] Re: False positives

2003-12-30 Thread Christopher X. Candreva
> > Start SpamAssassin results > > 7.10 points, 5.5 required; > > > * 3.0 -- BODY: Bayesian classifier says spam probability is 99 to 100% > > [score: 0.9988] Also -- isn't a 3.0 for 99-100% indicative of an OLD version of SpamAssassin ? ===

RE: [SAtalk] Re: False positives

2003-12-30 Thread Keith C. Ivey
Gary Funck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This simple grep won't find variously encoded forms for "young adult", but > I did try the base64 forms of "young adult" and "Young adult" and saw zero > hits. > > I'm sure who ever came up with that pattern in the first place had a good > reason > at the t

RE: [SAtalk] Re: False positives

2003-12-29 Thread Gary Funck
> From: JRiley > Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 9:43 PM > [...] > > > > The offending sentence is "We are an online discussion group in > > GA for parents and caregivers of children and young adults with > > disabilities." Sounds really pornographic, doesn't it? [...] > > There are several othe

Re: [SAtalk] Re: False positives

2003-12-29 Thread JRiley
9 to 100% > [score: 0.9988] > * 0.2 -- BODY: HTML contains unsafe auto-executing code > * 2.9 -- BODY: HTML has very strong "shouting" markup > * 0.4 -- URI: Uses %-escapes inside a URL's hostname > * 0.7 -- URI: Includes a link to a likely spammer email addres

Re: [SAtalk] Re: False positives

2003-12-29 Thread Keith C. Ivey
Bob George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Beamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] (I particularly like seeing the "* 0.5 -- BODY: Possible porn - Hot, > > Nasty, Wild, Young" rating on a children's autism mailing list...) > > Having read through the web page (apparently the email was the S

Re: [SAtalk] Re: False positives

2003-12-29 Thread JRiley
> Yep. I googled him and he's the father of an autistic child who is very > active in promoting awareness and research. Easy to see where the > hyperdrive comes from. Still... mix in a compassion sandwich in other > areas of your life will ya, Len!? ;) I know... not here, quake > server, etc

RE: [SAtalk] Re: False positives

2003-12-29 Thread Jennifer Wheeler
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:spamassassin- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob George > Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 4:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [SAtalk] Re: False positives > > John Beamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr

[SAtalk] Re: False positives

2003-12-29 Thread Bob George
John Beamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] (I particularly like seeing the "* 0.5 -- BODY: Possible porn - Hot, > Nasty, Wild, Young" rating on a children's autism mailing list...) Having read through the web page (apparently the email was the SAME HTML page -- argh!), I do wonder what flagged

[SAtalk] Re: False positives

2003-12-29 Thread Bob George
Evan Platt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > I thought he replied with.. > >> I did not know spamassassin is home-brew. [...] I think that was a quote from a personal email to Chris, to which he then Cc:'d the list in response. I got almost the exact same reply from a direct email I sent Lenny

[SAtalk] Re: False positives

2003-12-28 Thread Bob Proulx
Hello Lenny Lenny Schafer wrote: > To Spamassassin: I am one of the users of Spamassassin. As with many things in the free software world it is a team effort and anyone who takes the time and effort to contribute are part of that team. Which means you often won't find any particular person who

[SAtalk] Re: False positives

2003-12-28 Thread Bob George
On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 02:00, schafer wrote: > [...] > Exhibit: > > Start SpamAssassin results > 7.10 points, 5.5 required; > [...] > * 3.0 -- BODY: Bayesian classifier says spam probability is 99 to 100% > [score: 0.9988] > [...] > * -4.3 -- AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment > End of SpamAs

Re: [SAtalk] Re: False Positives and SpamAssassin

2002-04-15 Thread Craig R Hughes
Sidney Markowitz wrote: SM> [moved from Razor-users mailing list]: SM> On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 11:36, Craig R Hughes wrote: SM> > Is the problem that you're seeing "real" email generating scores in SM> > excess of 30 in SA, or that people are ignoring the warning and SM> > reducing the threshold su

[SAtalk] Re: False Positives and SpamAssassin

2002-04-15 Thread Sidney Markowitz
[moved from Razor-users mailing list]: On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 11:36, Craig R Hughes wrote: > Is the problem that you're seeing "real" email generating scores in > excess of 30 in SA, or that people are ignoring the warning and > reducing the threshold substantially below 30? Craig - As someone sa

[SAtalk] Re: false positives since upgrading to 2.11 (1/7)

2002-03-07 Thread Shane Williams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Douglas J Hunley wrote: > Olivier Nicole spewed electrons into the ether that assembled into: > > The reports tells you that the mailing list is sent through a relay > > that is known to be used for spam. > > > > And this is confirmed by a s