On Sun, 2004-09-05 at 17:50 -0500, Robert Nicholson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been out of the loop for a while and I was wondering if any
> signficant changes have happened since 2.61 and whether I would likely
> be introducing any incompatibility issues by upgrading.
I'm not 100% sure about 2.61, b
--On Sunday, September 05, 2004 2:15 PM -0700 Daniel Quinlan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's also not just enough to ping the higher priority MX peers because
the spam checker might be running on the primary MX only so it would
only receive delayed mail from the backup MXes once it was back up.
P
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 05:50:34PM -0500, Robert Nicholson wrote:
> Because I'm using Mail::Audit I often have to construct NoMailAudit's
> from SA and visa versa.
Yeah... Mail::Audit support really was deprecated a while ago, and it's
actually completely removed in 3.0.0. There were too many is
Hi,
I've been out of the loop for a while and I was wondering if any
signficant changes have happened since 2.61 and whether I would likely
be introducing any incompatibility issues by upgrading.
Currently I'm programatically invoke Spamassassin from within a
perlscript that processes my incomi
On Sunday, September 5, 2004, 2:56:04 PM, Ryan Thompson wrote:
> FWIW, the mass-check I did on that 75K corpus took about 1.75h, on a
> beefy machine with rbldnsd running on localhost, with 20 concurrent
> jobs. (mass-check is slower than molasses for anything that blocks if
> you don't let it run
Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, but by my quick test here it would help a bit. 0.22% of my spam and
> 9% of my missed spam was sent via my secondary MX.
Oops, that 0.22% is the number of _missed_ spam messages that hit the
rule out of all of my spam. It's about 8% of my spam ov
Jeff Chan wrote to SURBL Discuss and SpamAssassin Users:
In order to reduce false positives in the SURBL data, we would
like to have access to ham corpora. Does anyone know of any
public ham copora, including just the URI domain names from the
hams? Or is there anyone who would be willing to run
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes:
> Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Has anyone written a plugin for SA3 that pings the higher-priority MX
> > peers for a domain and boosts the spam score if they're up?
>
> No, but by my quick test here it woul
In order to reduce false positives in the SURBL data, we would
like to have access to ham corpora. Does anyone know of any
public ham copora, including just the URI domain names from the
hams? Or is there anyone who would be willing to run our URI
domain lists against their ham?
Does anyone know
Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has anyone written a plugin for SA3 that pings the higher-priority MX
> peers for a domain and boosts the spam score if they're up?
No, but by my quick test here it would help a bit. 0.22% of my spam and
9% of my missed spam was sent via my secondary
Has anyone written a plugin for SA3 that pings the higher-priority MX peers
for a domain and boosts the spam score if they're up?
On Sunday, September 5, 2004, 10:32:57 AM, Ryan Thompson wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote to SURBL Discuss and SpamAssassin Users:
>> Basically the higher the FP rate, the less useful a list is.
> ... or, rather, the lower it ought to be scored.
Yes, but please remember that not everyone has the ability
I have three questions regarding mail log excerpt at end of post.
1. Can't write to bayes_journal, Bayes db update ignored - My Bayes stuff
is in /var/.spamassassin as shown below. Here's the pertinent portion of
local.cf:
use_bayes 1
bayes_path /var/.spamassassin/bayes
bayes_file_mode 0777
bay
Jeff Chan wrote to SURBL Discuss and SpamAssassin Users:
Basically the higher the FP rate, the less useful a list is.
... or, rather, the lower it ought to be scored.
Does anyone have other corpus stats to share, in particular
FP rates?
Sure. All of these messages were received in the past 10 days
I've forgotten which version you said you are running, 2.63?
Yes, Ensim 4.0.1 comes with 2.63.
There are some known problems with 2.6x that can cause, or seem to cause,
things like this.
1.You might have bigevil.cf. This will crash almost any machine these
days. If so, get rid of it.
How do I
Did you take a look at MaliScanner.conf that I sent you?
Thanks,
Predrag
From: "David J. Duffner - NWCWEB.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Loren Wilton'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: spamd eating up CPU
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 20:39:31 -04
Theodore Heise wrote:
This seems counterintuitive to me, based on my understanding of
probability and statistics (which is admitedly just enough to be
dangerous). Is this a result of some interaction? For example a
message that meets BAYES_99 is also more likely to trigger some
network tests, so
Hi all,
This may have been addressed previously, but I couldn't find it in
the list archives.
I was looking over scores of my newly installed 3.0.0-rc2 and
noticed that for fourth column[1] the BAYES_95 score is higher than
BAYES_99.
score BAYES_00 0 0 -1.665 -2.599
score BAYES_
On Sunday, September 5, 2004, 3:30:49 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> Seeing those data it would be very interesting if we could test a seperate
> list. Is that possible? I would like to test the Prolo and Joe's list
> combined, without the rest of the WS list. I can generate the data for a
> tes
Eric Kolve and I were looking at how to best set the default SpamCopURI
scores for the various SURBL lists and at first we tried looking at the
SpamAssassin 3.0 perceptron-generated scores as a possible guide:
> http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.0.x/dist/rules/50_scores.cf
>
> # The followi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joe Flowers writes:
> > You make a valid point in that, if graphed separately, ham and spam
> should show up as two separate curves on a graph.
>
> > However, there *is* overlap,
>
> Yes, I expect overlap or SA would be perfect with no FPs or FNs
"Cirelle Enterprises" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You would think one would suffice.
>
> 0.5 X_MSMAIL_PRIORITY_HIGH Sent with 'X-Msmail-Priority' set to high
> 1.3 X_PRIORITY_HIGH Sent with 'X-Priority' set to high
They're different headers and only sum to 1.8.
The scores will in
>-Original Message-
>From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 7:54 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: spamd eating up CPU
>
>
>I've forgotten which version you said you are running, 2.63?
>
>There are some known problems with 2.6x that can cause
23 matches
Mail list logo
