On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 21:53 -0400, Ian Turner wrote:
> They are moderately low-scoring, sadly (I wouldn't have noticed otherwise!),
> mainly due to bayes poison. A typical message looks like this:
Do you manually train them as spam?
> -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is
On Thursday, July 25, 2013 03:23:39 AM Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 20:28 -0400, Ian Turner wrote:
> > I notice that the old rule ADDRESS_IN_SUBJECT was dropped starting in
> > SpamAssassin 3.3 (The change is in bug 5123 and commit 467038). Lately,
> > however, I've started ge
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 20:28 -0400, Ian Turner wrote:
> I notice that the old rule ADDRESS_IN_SUBJECT was dropped starting in
> SpamAssassin 3.3 (The change is in bug 5123 and commit 467038). Lately,
> however, I've started getting a lot of spam again where the To: address is in
> the subject. Pe
On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 01:10 +0200, Mark Martinec wrote:
> The SA 3.3.2 and the current 3.4.0 both contain a code
> that copies stdin to a temporary file in order to make the
> ArchiveIterator happy, which only accepts files or directories.
>
> So the only current advantage of passing a message on
Hello list,
I notice that the old rule ADDRESS_IN_SUBJECT was dropped starting in
SpamAssassin 3.3 (The change is in bug 5123 and commit 467038). Lately,
however, I've started getting a lot of spam again where the To: address is in
the subject. Perhaps it's time to evaluate restoring this rule?
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 10:48 -0500, Kareem Dana wrote:
> I am using SpamAssassin 3.3.2 on FreeBSD 9.1. I'd just like to confirm
> that I can pipe messages to sa-learn. The following commands should do
> the same thing, correct?
>
> # cat spammail | sa-learn --spam
> # sa-learn --spam spammail
Corr
On Wednesday 24 July 2013 17:48:47 Kareem Dana wrote:
> I am using SpamAssassin 3.3.2 on FreeBSD 9.1. I'd just like to confirm that
> I can pipe messages to sa-learn. The following commands should do the same
> thing, correct?
>
> # cat spammail | sa-learn --spam
> # sa-learn --spam spammail
Yes,
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 15:15 +0200, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
> I rewrote this (not GTUBE anymore) and had the same bayes score
> http://pastebin.com/ATqch32Y
Simon, it seems you have a false understanding of Bayes and how it
works. Quoting parts of the mail body from that paste:
> You should send t
I am using SpamAssassin 3.3.2 on FreeBSD 9.1. I'd just like to confirm that
I can pipe messages to sa-learn. The following commands should do the same
thing, correct?
# cat spammail | sa-learn --spam
# sa-learn --spam spammail
I have tested and they appear to be identical, but ultimately I will
On 2013-07-24 15:59, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:15:01 +0200
> Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>
>> I rewrote this (not GTUBE anymore) and had the same bayes score
>> http://pastebin.com/ATqch32Y [1] [3]
>
> It's not particularly surprising it hits BAYES_00, aside from the
> obfuscated words
On 24.07.13 13:00, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
Yesterday, this did not hit BAYES at all, and now this hits BAYES_00,
and I did not use autolearn. I did a sa-learn --forget for good measure
and this changed nothing (*see below). I am a little flummoxed. Do any
of you have any ideas?
_# sa-learn --f
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:15:01 +0200
Simon Loewenthal wrote:
> I rewrote this (not GTUBE anymore) and had the same bayes score
> http://pastebin.com/ATqch32Y [3]
It's not particularly surprising it hits BAYES_00, aside from the
obfuscated words it's not very spammy.
What you originally said was:
On 2013-07-24 14:41, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:04:36 +0200
> JK4 wrote:
>
>> On 2013-07-24 13:31, RW wrote:
> This isn't a GTUBE email, it's an email with lots of innocuous text and the
> obfuscated name of a drug claiming to be a GTUBE email.
> http://spamassassin.apache.org/gtube
JK4 skrev den 2013-07-24 14:40:
#shortcircuit BAYES_00 ham
or change it to on, not adding ham score here
I ran my message through spamc []see pastebin below), but this still
won't explain why this hits bayes 00 :(
the error is to not add -100 on shortcircuit, it is just save circles
not h
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:04:36 +0200
JK4 wrote:
>
>
> On 2013-07-24 13:31, RW wrote:
> > This isn't a GTUBE email, it's an email with lots of innocuous text
> > and the obfuscated name of a drug claiming to be a GTUBE email.
> >
> > http://spamassassin.apache.org/gtube/ [2]
> >
> > If it was
On 2013-07-24 14:19, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Simon Loewenthal skrev den 2013-07-24 13:00:
>
>> Little email and result of spamc can be found here
>> http://pastebin.com/5N0xhWms [1] [1]
>
> -100 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run, due to a
> shortcircuited rule
> [score: 0.0008]
> -1.9 BA
JK4 skrev den 2013-07-24 14:04:
This is a GTUBE test email I'm using to test if rules I wrote fired.
I just don't know why this started hitting bayes zero all of a
sudden.
This shortcircuits because the server is configured to do so, and I
could turn this off.
what is learned so ?
Simon Loewenthal skrev den 2013-07-24 13:00:
Little email and result of spamc can be found here
http://pastebin.com/5N0xhWms [1]
-100 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run, due to a
shortcircuited rule
[score: 0.0008]
-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Baye
On 2013-07-24 13:31, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:00:59 +0200
> Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>
>> Hi, Yesterday, this did not hit BAYES at all, and now this hits BAYES_00,
>> and I did not use autolearn. I did a sa-learn --forget for good measure and
>> this changed nothing (*see below). I
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:00:59 +0200
Simon Loewenthal wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Yesterday, this did not hit BAYES at all, and now this hits BAYES_00,
> and I did not use autolearn. I did a sa-learn --forget for good
> measure and this changed nothing (*see below). I am a little
> flummoxed. Do any
Hi,
Yesterday, this did not hit BAYES at all, and now this hits BAYES_00,
and I did not use autolearn. I did a sa-learn --forget for good measure
and this changed nothing (*see below). I am a little flummoxed. Do any
of you have any ideas?
Little email and result of spamc can be found here
21 matches
Mail list logo
