-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joe Emenaker writes:
> Joe Flowers wrote:
>
> >> If your "spread" is good and it's just the threshold that needs
> >> adjusting, it would be trivial to make a rule that fires on every
> >> message and give > it a score equal to the desired differen
Joe Flowers wrote:
If your "spread" is good and it's just the threshold that needs
adjusting, it would be trivial to make a rule that fires on every
message and give > it a score equal to the desired difference...
Thanks Pierre. That may be what I have to do, if noone has a better idea.
Actually,
Steve Bertrand wrote:
> SA isn't about the "average" it's about the accuracy.
If this were the case, then why aren't the spam scores
("*required_hits*") for each message either 1 or 0 and nothing else?
Oh, come on now. This is just a troll on a very legitimate and
informative statement.
No.
>-Original Message-
>From: Predrag Lezaic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 6:03 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: RE: spamd eating up CPU
>
>
>> >Hello, I upgraded Ensim 3.5 to Ensim 4.0.1 which comes with
>> >SpamAssassin 2.63. N
>Hello, I upgraded Ensim 3.5 to Ensim 4.0.1 which comes with
>SpamAssassin 2.63. Now, numerous times every day spamd starts gobbling
down
>CPU resources when looked at in top. Eventually it locks everything so
bad
>that the only thing I can do is reboot remotely since I don't have
physical
>acce
>-Original Message-
>From: Predrag Lezaic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 5:42 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: spamd eating up CPU
>
>
>Hello, I upgraded Ensim 3.5 to Ensim 4.0.1 which comes with
>SpamAssassin 2.63. Now, numerous times every day
Hello, I upgraded Ensim 3.5 to Ensim 4.0.1 which comes with SpamAssassin
2.63. Now, numerous times every day spamd starts gobbling down CPU resources
when looked at in top. Eventually it locks everything so bad that the only
thing I can do is reboot remotely since I don't have physical access to
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Kelson wrote:
When viewing the message source with SpamAssassin, pine doesn't break it
into attachments, everything's all in one message.
-Dan
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> some mail clients (at least pine) don't show the headers when you
> view the attachment.
As far
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
some mail clients (at least pine) don't show the headers when you
view the attachment.
As far as pine goes, if you start viewing the headers on the main
message, then step into the attachment, it will show any headers in the
attached message.
Commands would be:
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 05:25:02PM -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> Hey all, I noticed when SpamAssassin mangles the original email, the
> original headers are NOT included in the main email. This gets annoying
Well, not all of them anyway.
> the attachment. Is there a fix to allow t
Hey all, I noticed when SpamAssassin mangles the original email, the
original headers are NOT included in the main email. This gets annoying
as some mail clients (at least pine) don't show the headers when you view
the attachment. Is there a fix to allow the full headers to show through
in th
RH7.3,Postfix 2.1, procmail w/ SpamAssassin.
Using type 1 after-queue filtering.
===
Executing in master.cf:
procmail unix - n n - 12 pipe
flags=R user=filter
argv=procmail -Y -f- -t -m /etc/mail/procmail/procmailrc ${sender}
${re
Hello Joe,
Friday, September 3, 2004, 7:01:12 AM, you wrote:
>> why do you need to alter the average scores of ham/spam?
JF> What a horrible horrible mess if we can't!
Sorry, I don't understand.
JF> One example:
JF> All of my users have set their "optimal" spam thresholds to some number
JF> b
I had the same problem. 3.0 and the URIBL's fixed it. Big thanks to the
people that made that possible.
Rhett Roy
Manager, Data Center Operations
Woman's Hospital
Baton Rouge, LA
> -Original Message-
> From: Gordon Thagard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 1:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004, Joe Flowers yowled:
> When I say "ham and spam curves", I'm envisioning 2 bell curves on the same
> graph, significantly separated - I hope, and SA
> automatically/continually keeping "5.0" sitting right in the middle between
> their peaks.
The GA (in 2.x) or perceptron (in
It looks good. But WS and OB actually hit more then SC in a nationwide taste
test :)
Just not in this case. However Multi takes care of all this for you.
--Chris
>-Original Message-
>From: Gordon Thagard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 3:15 PM
>To: Chris Sante
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] yowled:
> So I'm wondering - any ideas on dealing with giant-attachment spam?
How many of SA's rules run over non-textual attachments? (rawbody rules,
I guess... there are only 41 of those. Not many.)
It might be worthwhile arranging to have two limits, one
Great! I'll give it a shot. I suppose I'll know next week how well it
works. Are the defaults (below) good enough?
uri SPAMCOP_URI_RBL
eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('sc.surbl.org','127.0.0.2')describe
SPAMCOP_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in spamcop database at sc.surbl.org
tflags SPAMCOP_URI_RBL n
I've been being hit by this type of spam quite hard lately, but finally found a
way to stop it. Make sure you are running the SARE html and adult rulesets.
Then add to your local CF:
score SARE_HTML_URI_NODOT2 2.0
score SARE_HTML_A_HIDEtst2 4.0
This spammer's emails ALWAYS hit these 2 rule
>-Original Message-
>From: Gordon Thagard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 2:29 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Those sneaky porno spammers
>
>
>Solaris 9
>Postfix 2.1.x
>Spamassassin 2.64
>Amavisd-new-20030616-p10
>Clamav-0.74
>Bayes
>Razor
>DCC
Solaris 9
Postfix 2.1.x
Spamassassin 2.64
Amavisd-new-20030616-p10
Clamav-0.74
Bayes
Razor
DCC
Hello All,
I have setup what I consider to be a very good MTA for our College which
is fending off a 49/51% SPAM/HAM ratio and dealing with many thousands
of emails a day. While the system does a very g
> I'm fairly new to using SA, (I was using a pure Razor2 setup
> until recently)
> and this is the first mention I've heard of a GA to adjust
> the scores on the
> rules. Can you point me to any documentation of this? I've checked the
> website, and I don't see anything there.
Actually, it's part
Joe Flowers wrote to users@spamassassin.apache.org:
Help please!
If the average spam score of all of my ham messages is 1.0 and the average
spam score of all of my spam messages is 3.0, then what is the best way to
move the average_of_ these_two_averages (2.0) back up to 5.0?
The result being th
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 10:29:32AM -0400, Matt Kettler whispered:
> SA's scores are assigned by a genetic algorithm that evolves out the best
> scores for all the rules as one gigantic simultaneous equation. It tunes
> this equation to get the most email correctly placed into the spam and ham
>
> Many people have tried to give you advice,
Yes, and I appreciate everything that everyone has said and there is
some information in no responses too.
> for something that really
> was not clarified as to why
> you were trying to achieve what you were.
Because answering why takes the focus off o
>-Original Message-
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:04 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: SURBL Discuss
>Subject: Re: Applying SURBL against blog comment spammers
>
>
>On Thursday, September 2, 2004, 5:43:26 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
>>> Given th
> > SA isn't about the "average" it's about the accuracy.
>
> If this were the case, then why aren't the spam scores
> ("*required_hits*") for each message either 1 or 0 and nothing else?
Oh, come on now. This is just a troll on a very legitimate and
informative statement.
If spam were like viri
> SA isn't about the "average" it's about the accuracy.
If this were the case, then why aren't the spam scores
("*required_hits*") for each message either 1 or 0 and nothing else?
If your "spread" is good and it's just the threshold that needs
adjusting,
it would be trivial to make a rule that fires on every message and give > it a score equal to the desired difference...
Thanks Pierre. That may be what I have to do, if noone has a better idea.
BUT, that does imply that I
At 10:01 AM 9/3/2004 -0400, Joe Flowers wrote:
One example:
All of my users have set their "optimal" spam thresholds to some number
between 0.0 and 10.0.
If the SA developers correctly shift around test scores, add new and/or
improved algorithms, etc., and I need to take advantage of the latest,
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 10:09:38AM -0400, Pierre Thomson wrote:
> If your "spread" is good and it's just the threshold that needs adjusting, it
> would be trivial to make a rule that fires on every message and give it a
> score equal to the desired difference...
Or multiply all the scores by a c
Hey Steve,
I was hoping not to do it that way because besides putting the human
mistake-prone factor back in, it skews and warps the heck out of the
spam and ham curves that the SA developers have worked so hard to get
near perfect and trumps their priceless knowledge and experience.
When I say
If your "spread" is good and it's just the threshold that needs adjusting, it
would be trivial to make a rule that fires on every message and give it a score
equal to the desired difference...
Pierre Thomson
BIC
-Original Message-
From: Joe Flowers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Frida
> Help please!
>
> If the average spam score of all of my ham messages is 1.0 and the
> average spam score of all of my spam messages is 3.0, then what is the
> best way to move the average_of_ these_two_averages (2.0) back up to
> 5.0?
>
> The result being that I need my current average score for
> why do you need to alter the average scores of ham/spam?
What a horrible horrible mess if we can't!
One example:
All of my users have set their "optimal" spam thresholds to some number
between 0.0 and 10.0.
If the SA developers correctly shift around test scores, add new and/or
improved algorit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joe Flowers wrote:
| Help please!
|
| If the average spam score of all of my ham messages is 1.0 and the
| average spam score of all of my spam messages is 3.0, then what is the
| best way to move the average_of_ these_two_averages (2.0) back up to 5.0?
Help please!
If the average spam score of all of my ham messages is 1.0 and the
average spam score of all of my spam messages is 3.0, then what is the
best way to move the average_of_ these_two_averages (2.0) back up to 5.0?
The result being that I need my current average score for ham messages
> At 10:19 PM 9/2/2004 -0400, JP wrote:
>>Now when I executed the same command as "you" I recieved a permissions
>>error? Upon inspecting the Bayes DB files apparently the file
>>bayes_toks is now owned by "me" and the permissions have been changed to
>> 600.
>>
>>What am i missing here?
>
> What
At 10:19 PM 9/2/2004 -0400, JP wrote:
Now when I executed the same command as "you" I recieved a permissions
error? Upon inspecting the Bayes DB files apparently the file
bayes_toks is now owned by "me" and the permissions have been changed to 600.
What am i missing here?
What you're missing, and
Just a quick note that some rules have been added to:
70_sare_header0.cf, 70_sare_header1.cf, and therefore 70_sare_header.cf
70_sare_genlsubj0.cf, 70_sare_genlsubj1.cf, 70_sare_genlsubj3.cf,
and therefore 70_sare_genlsubj.cf
70_sare_genlsubj_eng.cf
Bob Menschel
> Correct. I'm still wavering if a blog spam list should be part
> of multi. There are programs that use multi but (unadvisedly)
> don't differentiate between the source lists. That kind of
> argues for keeping multi focussed on only mail spam and making
> a blog spam list separate. On the othe
>How is it you can file for a patent on something long after it has
>come into common useage and is already available from multiple
>independent sources?
A most interesting question, since a patent must be filed within 18 months
(or maybe 12 months, I forget) after an invention becomes available t
I am running postfix with Procmail and Amavisd-new and SA 2.64
Everything is working fine (and has been for about 5 months now). I
finally got around to see about using Baysian filtering site wide. And by
sitewide I mean for two domains with a grand total of two actual users.
I set-up the /etc/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bob Apthorpe writes:
> Bad form to reply to one's own posts, I know, but I've just updated
> babycart so it takes metadata as well comments. Also, there's better
> debugging info, better docs, comments are now swaddled in RFC8222 format
> for easier d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Today I upgraded to Debian Sarge and version 2.64 of SpamAssassin, from an old
> 2.2x version. I'm now getting the errors shown at the end of this message,
> generated by many messages. I'm invoking SpamAssassin via:
>
> ...
>
> Sep 2 20:24:43 amber qmail: 1094171083
Hi,
Bad form to reply to one's own posts, I know, but I've just updated
babycart so it takes metadata as well comments. Also, there's better
debugging info, better docs, comments are now swaddled in RFC8222 format
for easier digestions by SA (including DNSBL lookup on the source IP
address), there
On Thursday, September 2, 2004, 5:43:26 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
>> Given the lack of commonality, it may not make much sense to
>> add to the mail spam lists, since it would be an extra 2000+
>> records that would probably not get hits on mail.
>>
>> The MT-Blacklist doesn't seem to update too freq
> > Chris... where have you been? We have had extensive discussions recently
> > where we all concluded that we have to make getting the FPs down a
priority
> > and the only way to do this is to (gulp), allow some graymarketers loose
> > (those who do a some or much spamming but who do have some le
Today I upgraded to Debian Sarge and version 2.64 of SpamAssassin, from an old
2.2x version. I'm now getting the errors shown at the end of this message,
generated by many messages. I'm invoking SpamAssassin via:
.qmail:
|/usr/bin/procmail
.procmailrc
:0fw: spamassassin.lock
| /
> Given the lack of commonality, it may not make much sense to
> add to the mail spam lists, since it would be an extra 2000+
> records that would probably not get hits on mail.
>
> The MT-Blacklist doesn't seem to update too frequently (the
> last new record was from 8/29) and has about 2000 recor
One five letter word: Money.
plus one six letter word: Lawyers
plus a surfeit of a four letter word: Gall
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "John Andersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How is it you can file for a patent on something long after it has
come into common useage and is already availab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Andersen writes:
> On Thursday 02 September 2004 03:43 pm, Steve Sobol wrote:
> > Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
> > > Yes. Although Microsoft has refused to disclose what they have
> > > actually applied for patents on, their license only applies to
On Thursday, September 2, 2004, 9:24:19 AM, Kelson Kelson wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:
>> Are they advertising legitimate sites or bad guy sites?
> Gambling sites, "pillz" sites, etc. The usual.
Thanks. Sounds like there are some definite bad guys
spamming blogs.
> More insidious are the ones tha
53 matches
Mail list logo
