Hi Bart,
>When I installed SA on my ISP's mailserver, I also set up a cron job to
>mail me a condensed report of the spams it had diverted. I had to put a
>special rule in .procmailrc to avoid invoking SA on the spam report, as
>I found that a large number of SA's rules will match their own nam
Michael Moncur wrote:
>>body CORRECT_FOR_EXCHANGE /This message is in MIME format/
>>describe CORRECT_FOR_EXCHANGE Correct for MIME 'null block'
>>
>
>FYI, I seem to recall SA already having a test like this. You might want to
>double-check.
>
Yes, it's called MIME_NULL_BLOCK. (I'm lookin
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Gunter Ohrner wrote:
> Am Thursday, 28. February 2002 00:39 schrieb Bart Schaefer:
> > SPAM: Hit! (6.5 points) BODY: Link to a URL containing "remove"
>
> Were did Bart's message hit the test? That's certainly a false positive. :-)
The A_HREF_TO_REMOVE rule matched the lit
> To me, -ve scores on tests can also be used to "offset" spammy messages in
> clean email. I have several of these of my own creation:
Well, yes, that's true - SpamAssassin already includes a bunch of these, such
as COPYRIGHT_CLAIMED and PHP_SIGNATURE. What I was talking about was the fact
that
> I know there are theoretical reasons why this might make sense, but I don't
> see any benefit in the real world for scores like these. The high scores
> increase the chance of a random false positive - regardless of the size of
> the existing corpus - and if the negative ones indicate that the r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
Interesing:
Am Thursday, 28. February 2002 00:39 schrieb Bart Schaefer:
> SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results
> -- SPAM: Diese eMail enthält höchstwahrscheinlich
> unerwünschte Werbung (SPAM). SPAM: Die eMai
> SPAM: Hit! (4.9 points) BODY: URL of page called "remove"
> SPAM: Hit! (6.5 points) BODY: Link to a URL containing "remove"
No, not impressive. Those two scores would put a whole lot of honest opt-in
web "flyers" and likely many mailing lists in the spam bucket.
I'm strongly opposed to any
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 05:15:20PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> I meant single score, but yet, that message is pretty impressive. I assume it
> was not a false-positive :)
Uh, yeah, it was real spam. :)
I just found a 47.1 hits one, even though it had two -ve scores
(HTTP_USERNAME_USED and
CTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Troubling new scores in 2.1 release
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 05:00:29PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> > Yes, the large rule scores probably do make the system more sensitive to minor
> > variations in input. How
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 05:00:29PM -0800, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Yes, the large rule scores probably do make the system more sensitive to minor
> variations in input. However, they also apparently lead to more accurate
> scores. It is interesting that even running unconstrained over 50,000
>
fer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Troubling new scores in 2.1 release
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
>
> > This isn't really a problem. It can actually be helpful too to allow
> >
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> This isn't really a problem. It can actually be helpful too to allow
> the GA to do its own thing [...]
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Tom Lipkis wrote:
> With large scores like this (positive or negative), very small
> perturbations in input can cause wildly
ert. I think you'll
probably end up with worse results though.
C
Bart Schaefer wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:39:15 -0800 (PST)
> From: Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Troubling new scores in 2.1 release
>
> I'
I've diffed the r1.37 and r1.38 rules/50_scores.cf and some of the changes
are so unbelievable that I've decided not to install the new scores file.
Here's just a sampling:
r1.37 r1.38
----
score 25FREEMEGS_U
14 matches
Mail list logo
