From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In SA 3.1.0 they did force-fix the scores of the bayes rules,
particularly the high-end. The perceptron assigned BAYES_99 a score of
1.89 in the 3.1.0 mass-check run. The devs jacked it up to 3.50.
Th
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Besides.. If you want to make a mathematics based argument against me,
start by explaining how the perceptron mathematically is flawed. It
assigned the original score based on real
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List Mail User wrote:
Matt Kettler replied:
John Tice wrote:
Greetings,
This is my first post after having lurked some. So, I'm getting these
same "RE: good" spams but they're hitting eight rules and typically
scoring between 30 and 40. I'm really unso
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Dan wrote:
> > It looks like it might have some interesting purposes. But for the
> > most part, I can't think of what you would use it for. I can't
> > think of a single example where SARE could have used this before.
>
> Actually, the way I expect to use it is more like:
>
>
On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In SA 3.1.0 they did force-fix the scores of the bayes rules,
particularly the high-end. The perceptron assigned BAYES_99 a score of
1.89 in the 3.1.0 mass-check run. The devs jacked it up to 3.50.
That does make me wonder if:
1) When BAYE
Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Besides.. If you want to make a mathematics based argument against me,
>> start by explaining how the perceptron mathematically is flawed. It
>> assigned the original score based on real-world data.
>
> Did it? I thought
On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Besides.. If you want to make a mathematics based argument against me,
start by explaining how the perceptron mathematically is flawed. It
assigned the original score based on real-world data.
Did it? I thought the BAYES_* scores have been fi
Igor Chudov wrote:
> Here's something that I do not understand. What is the point of
> spamming people repeatedly not once, twice, or even 10 times, but
> hundreds of times. If I wanted to procure pils, or pgrn, or whatever,
> I would have done it on the first 10 spams. After 100 or so spams,
> wha
On 4/29/06, List Mail User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While SA is quite robust largely because of the design feature that
no single reason/cause/rule should by itself mark a message as spam, I have
to guess that the FP rate that the majority of users see for BAYES_99 is far
below 1%.
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 01:07:28PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 06:16:36PM +0200, Rainer Sokoll wrote:
> > loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Razor2
>
> don't do that in a cf file..
Moved to init.pre
> What does the output from:
>
> spamassassin --lint -D razor2
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 06:16:36PM +0200, Rainer Sokoll wrote:
> loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Razor2
don't do that in a cf file..
> Any suggestions?
What does the output from:
spamassassin --lint -D razor2
look like?
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"What is a lie but the truth in ma
Hi,
I run Gentoo linux and kde 3.5.2 with kmail
Currently I have configured and installed SpamAssassin version 3.1.0
I configured SA to run as demone against KMail running as plug-in. So, anytime
I receive mail through KMail, SA filters all mail.
I have few questions reguarding how SA filters ma
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 10:39:48AM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> the third thing in the UPGRADE doc:
>
> - Due to license restrictions the DCC and Razor2 plugins are disabled
> by default. [...]
OK, in my local.cf I have:
loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Razor2
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssa
Theo,
Thanks for this. Now I feel stubid for bother the list. I have been running SA
for
some time, and didn't notice that change. My bad.
Thanks for the quick reply!
Dave
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:39:48 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:58:42AM -0400, David Flanigan wro
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:58:42AM -0400, David Flanigan wrote:
> (http://www.flanigan.net/spam) seen even a single RAZOR hit. However, I get
> no errors
> in the error logs. The only error I see is on a `spamassassin lint` which
> says:
>
> [8611] warn: config: failed to parse line, skipping:
Thank you all for the comments. My personal experience is that
Bayes_99 is amazingly reliable––close to 100% for me. I formerly had
it set to 4.5 so that bayes_99 plus one other hit would flag it, but
then I started getting some spam that were not hit by any other rule,
yet bayes correctl
Jonas Eckerman wrote:
> Jakob Hirsch wrote:
>
>> I don't think SQLite itself is _that_ slow (in fact, I don't think it's
>> slow at all), it's most probably a matter of optimization,
>
> SQL Lite *can* be very slow at some inserts/updates on some systems
> because of how it handles writes. SQLite
List Mail User wrote:
>> ...
>>
>
> Matt Kettler replied:
>
>
>> John Tice wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> This is my first post after having lurked some. So, I'm getting these
>>> same "RE: good" spams but they're hitting eight rules and typically
>>> scoring between 30 and 40. I'm reall
OK... I did the greps you recommended and didn't find any use_dcc lines...
I even did:
grep use_dcc /home/sites/*/users/*/.spamassassin/user_prefs and still didn't
find anything (checking all user directories).
(actually, my running SA build is in /home/spam-filter... (bin, share, etc.
- I'm on
Hello Spamasssins,
I am having an odd problem, I was hoping for some insight from those more
adept than
I.
I am trying to get Razor working with Spamassassin to little effect. To put it
simply,
SA never uses RAZOR, and I have never in thousands of messages
(http://www.flanigan.net/spam) s
>...
Matt Kettler replied:
>John Tice wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>> This is my first post after having lurked some. So, I'm getting these
>> same "RE: good" spams but they're hitting eight rules and typically
>> scoring between 30 and 40. I'm really unsophisticated compared to you
>> guys, and it be
Kenneth-san, thank you for your kindly advice.
I've posted new rules to Bugzilla.
But, it's a little bit difficult for me. ^^;
BTW, I have more rules for catching various types of spams.
Which is better for posting new rules?
(1) first, posting new rules to this users ML, next, posting to Bugzill
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is my first post after having lurked some. So, I'm getting these
same "RE: good" spams but they're hitting eight rules and typically
scoring between 30 and 40. I'm really unsophisticated compared to you
guys, and it begs the question––what am I doing
> This is my first post after having lurked some. So, I'm getting these
> same "RE: good" spams but they're hitting eight rules and typically
> scoring between 30 and 40. I'm really unsophisticated compared to you
> guys, and it begs the question––what am I doing wrong? All I use is a
> tweaked use
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
BAYES_99, by definition, has a 1% false positive rate.
That is what Bayes thinks. I think it is closer to something between
0.5% and 0.1% false positive. I have mine trained down lethally fine
at this point, it appears.
Ok.. Fine, let
25 matches
Mail list logo
