RE: [SAtalk] BAYES_99

2004-01-30 Thread Tony Hoyle
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David Hooton > Sent: 25 January 2004 04:01 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [SAtalk] BAYES_99 > > > Hi All, > > I've been playing with bayes on my home machine and have been > very impressed wi

Re: [SAtalk] BAYES_99

2004-01-29 Thread Robert Menschel
Hello David, Saturday, January 24, 2004, 8:01:24 PM, you wrote: DH> I've been playing with bayes on my home machine and have been very impressed DH> with it. I was however wondering to what degree everyone else trusts DH> BAYES_99? Is it generally accepted as a sure spamsign or do you expect ti

Re: [SAtalk] BAYES_99

2004-01-27 Thread Brook Humphrey
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 27 January 2004 12:44 am, Johann Spies wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:01:24PM +1100, David Hooton wrote: > > I've been playing with bayes on my home machine and have been very > > impressed with it. I was however wondering to what degr

Re: [SAtalk] BAYES_99

2004-01-27 Thread Johann Spies
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:01:24PM +1100, David Hooton wrote: > I've been playing with bayes on my home machine and have been very impressed > with it. I was however wondering to what degree everyone else trusts > BAYES_99? Is it generally accepted as a sure spamsign or do you expect ti > to be b

Re: [SAtalk] BAYES_99

2004-01-26 Thread Alex S Moore
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:01:24 +1100 "David Hooton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I've been playing with bayes on my home machine and have been very impressed > with it. I was however wondering to what degree everyone else trusts > BAYES_99? Is it generally accepted as a sure spamsign

Re: [SAtalk] BAYES_99 and USER_IN_WHITELIST

2004-01-06 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 03:50:59PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 132 hit BAYES_99. Is there some way, with a meta rule if nothing else, to > say if BAYES_99 hits, cancel out the USER_IN_WHITELIST hit? Sure, but if you use whitelist_from_rcvd instead of whitelist_from, you'll have a much smalle

Re: [SAtalk] Bayes_99 causing many false positives.

2003-12-30 Thread David A . Roth
On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 01:40 PM, Simon Byrnand wrote: I upgraded from 2.60 to 2.61 and I am getting many false positives. It seems that Bayes is pushing it with a score of 5.4. What are people to do to get around this? Do you set Bayes for a lower score? Do you disable? Thanks! 5.4 BAYE

Re: [SAtalk] Bayes_99 causing many false positives.

2003-12-28 Thread Simon Byrnand
At 15:11 28/12/2003 -0500, David A. Roth wrote: On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 01:40 PM, Simon Byrnand wrote: I upgraded from 2.60 to 2.61 and I am getting many false positives. It seems that Bayes is pushing it with a score of 5.4. What are people to do to get around this? Do you set Bayes fo

Re: [SAtalk] Bayes_99 causing many false positives.

2003-12-28 Thread Simon Byrnand
> I upgraded from 2.60 to 2.61 and I am getting many false positives. It > seems that Bayes is pushing it with a score of 5.4. What are people to > do to get around this? Do you set Bayes for a lower score? Do you > disable? Thanks! > > 5.4 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is

RE: [SAtalk] BAYES_99 on every SPAM - is this right?

2003-10-03 Thread Covington, Chris
So what is the solution for this problem? sa-learn --rebuild? I'm getting a lot of FPs from it too, even though my threshold is 8. Chris --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _

Re: [SAtalk] BAYES_99 on every SPAM - is this right?

2003-10-02 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:34:23AM +0100, Darren Coleman wrote: > My .spamassassin directory structure now looks like this (post-upgrade): > -rw---1 qmailq qmail 82304 Oct 2 09:29 bayes_journal > -rw---1 qmailq qmail21401600 Oct 2 09:29 bayes_seen > -rw---1 q

Re: [SAtalk] BAYES_99 on every SPAM - is this right?

2003-10-02 Thread Denis Ducamp
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 06:55:22AM -0400, Jack Gostl wrote: > > > > Having upgraded to 2.60 I've noticed that every mail that passes the SA > > > threshold (5.0 on my setup) always has BAYES_99... > > > > http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2413 > > Are you recommending that the co

Re: [SAtalk] BAYES_99 on every SPAM - is this right?

2003-10-02 Thread Jack Gostl
> > Having upgraded to 2.60 I've noticed that every mail that passes the SA > > threshold (5.0 on my setup) always has BAYES_99... > > http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2413 Are you recommending that the code be patched, or should SA be redownloaded and reinstalled? > > Denis D

Re: [SAtalk] BAYES_99 on every SPAM - is this right?

2003-10-02 Thread Denis Ducamp
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:34:23AM +0100, Darren Coleman wrote: > Hi, > > Having upgraded to 2.60 I've noticed that every mail that passes the SA > threshold (5.0 on my setup) always has BAYES_99... http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2413 Denis Ducamp. --

Re: [SAtalk] BAYES_99 on every SPAM - is this right?

2003-10-02 Thread Geoff Gibbs
> Having upgraded to 2.60 I've noticed that every mail that passes the SA > threshold (5.0 on my setup) always has BAYES_99... I have noticed this, but careful examination shows that one or two spams have a lower Bayes score. I suspect that the Bayes stuff may be working well. The vast majority o