At 11:23 PM +0200 06/30/2013, Benny Pedersen wrote:
does it continue if one msg is learned as spam, does it still after
say bayes_50 ?
No, it has BAYES_99 if I learn the message. That is, running SA on
the SAME message will give BAYES_99 after it's learned. It's not a
ham problem.
you sho
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 23:01:10 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> RW skrev den 2013-06-30 21:44:
>
> > I don't think Bayes tokenizes html. When I displayed it in claws
> > mail (with the dillo plugin) I just saw 4 links. Bayes is just
> > seeing the displayed texts from those links and some tokens from
On Sun, 2013-06-30 at 20:44 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:42:53 -0600
> Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Just got this spam:
> >
> > http://pastebin.com/KM5paaZ9
> >
>
> > (And yes, I know it only hit BAYES_50... I really think these
> > gibberish strings are confu
Amir 'CG' Caspi skrev den 2013-06-30 23:09:
very well. The actual spammy content is only 5% of the message
(maybe
less) and therefore doesn't "weigh" much in the Bayes analysis.
very well it could be
because it reduces the efficacy of learning these messages, per the
description above.
d
At 8:57 PM +0200 06/30/2013, Benny Pedersen wrote:
well it might confuse bayes yes, but it cant confuse you to run
sa-learn --spam on it ?
I've been running "sa-learn --spam" on these messages for a month
straight. Some get picked up, others don't. I'm still getting a lot
of BAYES_50 on the
RW skrev den 2013-06-30 21:44:
I don't think Bayes tokenizes html. When I displayed it in claws mail
(with the dillo plugin) I just saw 4 links. Bayes is just seeing the
displayed texts from those links and some tokens from the URIs.
bayes digest it all, its just body that only see html part w
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:42:53 -0600
Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just got this spam:
>
> http://pastebin.com/KM5paaZ9
>
> (And yes, I know it only hit BAYES_50... I really think these
> gibberish strings are confusing Bayes.
I don't think Bayes tokenizes html. When I displayed
Amir 'CG' Caspi skrev den 2013-06-30 20:42:
(And yes, I know it only hit BAYES_50... I really think these
gibberish strings are confusing Bayes. This is also another example
of where an HTML COMMENT GIBBERISH rule would help. ;-) )
well it might confuse bayes yes, but it cant confuse you to r
Hi all,
Just got this spam:
http://pastebin.com/KM5paaZ9
To me, it looks like LONGWORDS should have hit... but it didn't. I
ran it manually through spamassassin and spamc, and LONGWORDS still
didn't hit, so it seems to just not be hitting that rule. But, to my
eye, it looks like it
