Oops, further investigation indicates that Bayes is "on"--thought the
default was "off" for my config. I would be inclined to turn it off as I
have no decent way of teaching it beyond mass-config into the
future--please advise.
JP
On 10/17/10 10:37 PM, Jerry Pape wrote:
Wow, I am grateful f
Wow, I am grateful for the prompt answers, but I must say they have
confused me.
Bayes should not be on in my config and subsequent check of the GUI says
its not--this may be wrong.
Further, what are the "scoreset" indexes?
I don't use Bayes because all of my clients are POP mail and they a
On 10/18, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Ahem. Let us do this the other way round. *Why* do you believe this is
> warranted, *why* do you believe our mass-check contributors might have
> their internal and trusted networks set up incorrectly? This is crucial.
I'm not confident there is a problem. T
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 22:18 -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> > > Could it be verified that the corpora being submitted for the weekly
> > > Network Mass-Checks are coming from systems with correctly configured
> > > trusted_networks and internal_networks? [...]
> [...] I'm asking that each o
On 10/17, John Hardin wrote:
> The SA results within the submitted corpora themselves (if present in the
> first place) are ignored by the centralized nightly masscheck testing.
> Your concern is only valid for those who are doing local masschecks on
> private corpora and uploading the results
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, John Hardin wrote:
There are four score sets to choose from based on what options you have
enabled. The above is for scoreset 2, no BAYES + net tests.
Crap. That should be "scoreset 1". Sorry.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
Could it be verified that the corpora being submitted for the weekly
Network Mass-Checks are coming from systems with correctly configured
trusted_networks and internal_networks?
The SA results within the submitted corpora themselves (if prese
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, Jerry Pape wrote:
[Not sure if this is the right place to send this--please correct me if
I am in error]
This is the place.
Assessment of this header at http://www.futurequest.net/docs/SA/decode/
yields:
TestScore Description
BAYES_400.000 Bayesian spam
Could it be verified that the corpora being submitted for the weekly
Network Mass-Checks are coming from systems with correctly configured
trusted_networks and internal_networks? It's important for some of the
rules, and verifying it works seems inconvenient enough that it might have
been skipped,
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 17:05 -0700, Jerry Pape wrote:
> At some time in the not too distant past, my otherwise reliable SA
> system has broken in an odd way.
>
> This example is characteristic of the problem:
Can't follow. It is broken, because SA itself reports something
different from an unrelat
On 10/17/2010 7:05 PM, Jerry Pape wrote:
[snip]
> x-spam-status reads: No, score=3.8 required=4.0
> tests=BAYES_40,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,
> HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RDNS_NONE,URIBL_BLACK
> autolearn=no version=3.2.5
>
> Assessment of this header at http://www.futurequ
All,
[Not sure if this is the right place to send this--please correct me if
I am in error]
At some time in the not too distant past, my otherwise reliable SA
system has broken in an odd way.
This example is characteristic of the problem:
Cheap Airline Tickets email received--clearly junk
12 matches
Mail list logo
