On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 17:16 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> I have an idea that I would like to explore. But it needs to be able
> to make use of the Received: header IP chain of a message. I could do
> some brute force extraction of the headers. But then I would need to
> deal with trusted_networks.
Why don´t revert to the old behavior ? And enable BAYES_999 only for SA
3.4.1 +
I run SA 3.3.2 on a few servers and I don´t want patch every one.
El 17/02/2014 21:04, Kevin A. McGrail escribió:
On 2/17/2014 8:34 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 20:21:47 -0500
"Kevin A. McGrail"
On 18/02/14 15:49, Mark Martinec wrote:
> One server in each continent might be acceptable, but hasn't
> been tried.
Yeah, in fact I can separate into Europe and US (responsible for
different domains), so two Redis makes more sense.
> No corruption can happen due to network problems. Cases where
2014-02-18 02:34, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 20:21:47 -0500
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
Kevin> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7013 is
Kevin> open on the issue. Should be a very small patch if you want to
Kevin> update your installation.
So, this means that
2014-02-18, Jason Haar wrote:
We have a geographically distributed edge mail relay network (some in
the US and some in Europe) and I'm wondering if the new REDIS support
could be used to centralize our Bayes?
If you have a fast and reliable connection between the two,
then in principle it could
On 2/17/2014 8:34 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 20:21:47 -0500
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
Kevin> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7013 is
Kevin> open on the issue. Should be a very small patch if you want to
Kevin> update your installation.
So, this means t
Hi there
We have a geographically distributed edge mail relay network (some in
the US and some in Europe) and I'm wondering if the new REDIS support
could be used to centralize our Bayes?
Is anything special required to be done to get 4-6 spamd servers to use
the same REDIS backend? Will network
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 20:21:47 -0500
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
Kevin> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7013 is
Kevin> open on the issue. Should be a very small patch if you want to
Kevin> update your installation.
So, this means that the BAYES_999 mixup is not just a tempora
Good catch.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7013 is open on
the issue. Should be a very small patch if you want to update your
installation.
Regards,
KAM
On 2/17/2014 6:45 PM, Alex R wrote:
Look like BAYES_999 rules ignore the bayes_auto_learn_on_error 1 setting
And
On 2/17/2014 8:12 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
2014-02-18 Alex R wrote:
Look like BAYES_999 rules ignore the bayes_auto_learn_on_error 1 setting
And keep learning spam.
--- lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AutoLearnThreshold.pm (revision
1569155)
+++ lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AutoLearnThreshold.
2014-02-18 Alex R wrote:
Look like BAYES_999 rules ignore the bayes_auto_learn_on_error 1
setting
And keep learning spam.
--- lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AutoLearnThreshold.pm (revision
1569155)
+++ lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AutoLearnThreshold.pm (working copy)
@@ -241,7 +241,8 @@
On 02/01/2014 09:04 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
> Actually, now that I look at it, it appears to be a DNS issue. Hopefully
> it will get fixed soon.
> I noticed this a while ago, my guess is that the channel's gone.
>
> Are there any other channels out there at this point? What are people
> using nowaday
Hi,
> Thanks for posting this. I will work on the issue and open a bug. This is
> the first time we've switched the minor version (i.e. 3.3 to 3.4) and there
> is likely a publishing script I have to find and update.
>
> NOTE: I'd highly recommend running 3.4.0 but download the rules from
> spam
I have an idea that I would like to explore. But it needs to be able
to make use of the Received: header IP chain of a message. I could do
some brute force extraction of the headers. But then I would need to
deal with trusted_networks. SpamAssassin already extracts that chain
and handles the tr
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Thanks for posting this. I will work on the issue and open a bug.
Excellent!
> This is the first time we've switched the minor version (i.e. 3.3 to
> 3.4) and there is likely a publishing script I have to find and
> update.
There are bound to be some glitches along the
Look like BAYES_999 rules ignore the bayes_auto_learn_on_error 1 setting
And keep learning spam.
example
spamd: result: Y 34 -
AWL,AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2,BAYES_999,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK,FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLYTO,FROM_
Thanks for posting this. I will work on the issue and open a bug. This
is the first time we've switched the minor version (i.e. 3.3 to 3.4) and
there is likely a publishing script I have to find and update.
NOTE: I'd highly recommend running 3.4.0 but download the rules from
spamassassin.apa
After the upgrade to 3.4.0 I persistently get the following error from
sa-update.
channel: could not find working mirror, channel failed
If I run it with --debug then it looks like it gets everything that it
needs but then still fails. Here is the small snippet.
Feb 17 14:56:38.859 [7333] d
On 02/17/2014 09:44 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/17/2014 3:30 PM, Joe Sniderman wrote:
On 02/17/2014 02:35 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
I have had a number of experiences complaining about spam from
whitelisted hosts, and (with the exception of hostkarma, which is not
in the default ruleset) fou
On 2/17/2014 4:12 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:05:23 -0500
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
Kevin> BAYES_999 is just a finer gradient on BAYES_99 allowing for a
Kevin> higher score on the top .001% of Bayes hits.
Thanks for your reply. Could you explain in a bit more detail what
"
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:05:23 -0500
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
Kevin> BAYES_999 is just a finer gradient on BAYES_99 allowing for a
Kevin> higher score on the top .001% of Bayes hits.
Thanks for your reply. Could you explain in a bit more detail what
"gradient on top" (of another rule) means? It
On 2/17/2014 3:37 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:21:21 -0500
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
In the end, all we are doing is adding a gradient for 99.9 to 100%. I
will change this in the base rules for better clarity instead because
we already have evidence it's a good move.
Score often don't
On 2/17/2014 3:59 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Hello. This is the first time SA is giving me enough trouble that I
need to ask for help. I hope I get this right.
I observed a marked increase in false negatives in the last few weeks.
There have definitely been some increases in the past few weeks b
Hello. This is the first time SA is giving me enough trouble that I
need to ask for help. I hope I get this right.
I observed a marked increase in false negatives in the last few weeks.
Only today I had enough sense to look at the detailed scores. And, all
the escaped spams have hit the BAYES_9
On 2/17/2014 3:30 PM, Joe Sniderman wrote:
On 02/17/2014 02:35 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
I have had a number of experiences complaining about spam from
whitelisted hosts, and (with the exception of hostkarma, which is not
in the default ruleset) found many of my experiences to be
unsatisfactory, t
Feel free to speak up with specific issues on specific DNSBLs and let's
see if we can get the issues resolved.
On 2/17/2014 3:10 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
"Kevin A. McGrail" writes:
1st, I would say to look at
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklistsInclusionPolicy and
see what changes
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:21:21 -0500
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> In the end, all we are doing is adding a gradient for 99.9 to 100%. I
> will change this in the base rules for better clarity instead because
> we already have evidence it's a good move.
Score often don't follow the strength of a rul
On 02/17/2014 02:35 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I have had a number of experiences complaining about spam from
> whitelisted hosts, and (with the exception of hostkarma, which is not
> in the default ruleset) found many of my experiences to be
> unsatisfactory, to the point that they were escalated
"Kevin A. McGrail" writes:
> 1st, I would say to look at
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklistsInclusionPolicy and
> see what changes you are recommending globally.
What's missing is the requirement to effectively address situations,
which involves
publically-posted contact addr
On 2/17/2014 2:35 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
This subject recurs, with various whitelists.
While it's true that users can disable rules, the project-specified
rulesets should be chosen carefully. The basic approach is to obtain
scores by analyzing ham/spam corpora. For most rules, that's entirely
Axb writes:
> On 02/04/2014 05:55 PM, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
>> Since this whitelist does not respond to reports of abuse I think it
>> should be considered whether to keep it active in spamassassin.
> SpamAssassin is a framework - nothing stops you from disabling rules
> locally.
This subject
On 2/17/2014 12:48 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
RW wrote:
I have spam that's already hitting BAYES_999 with the default 1.0 score.
I upgraded as well and am also hit by several problems causing more
spam to be classified as an FN and passing a lot of spam through
today. One of them is the BAYES_999 r
RW wrote:
> I have spam that's already hitting BAYES_999 with the default 1.0 score.
I upgraded as well and am also hit by several problems causing more
spam to be classified as an FN and passing a lot of spam through
today. One of them is the BAYES_999 rule hitting with a score of 1.0.
In concep
On 2/17/2014 12:43 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 02/17/2014 02:43 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in
72_scores.cf
but without score (and thus default 1.0) in 50_scores.cf.
... a mistake happened apparently?
On 17.02.14 15:07,
On 2/17/2014 12:40 PM, Daniel Staal wrote:
Same here - it's causing a fair amount of FNs, as I have BAYES_99 set
with a 4.7 score, so this is lowering the spam score for a lot of mail.
Might want to temporarily set a score for bayes_99 of 4.7 and create a
copy of bayes_999 also set to 4.7.
The
On 02/17/2014 02:43 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in 72_scores.cf
but without score (and thus default 1.0) in 50_scores.cf.
... a mistake happened apparently?
On 17.02.14 15:07, Axb wrote:
BAYES_999 is *not* BAYES_99
sorry,it's B
--As of February 17, 2014 2:54:11 PM +, RW is alleged to have said:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:09:33 -0500
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:43 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in
> 72_scores.cf but
> without score (an
On 02/17/2014 04:21 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/17/2014 9:36 AM, Axb wrote:
could we agree to set the ceilings on lower safer scores?
Yes, I set the BAYES_999 to the existing score for BAYES_99 +0.2 as a
minor increase.
If possible use different rulenames so as not to tamper with the
exis
On 2/17/2014 9:36 AM, Axb wrote:
could we agree to set the ceilings on lower safer scores?
Yes, I set the BAYES_999 to the existing score for BAYES_99 +0.2 as a
minor increase.
If possible use different rulenames so as not to tamper with the
existing BAYES_99 stuff which could cause issues on p
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:09:33 -0500
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 2/17/2014 8:43 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in
> > 72_scores.cf but
> > without score (and thus default 1.0) in 50_scores.cf.
> >
> > ... a mistake happ
On Feb 17, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Axb wrote:
>
> could we agree to set the ceilings on lower safer scores?
>
In the interest of full disclosure, these rules are being tested because of me
(or at my suggestion anyway). I set them up locally based on discussion on this
very list from about 2 years a
On 02/17/2014 03:24 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/17/2014 9:13 AM, Axb wrote:
On 02/17/2014 03:09 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:43 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in
72_scores.cf but
without score (and thus defa
On 2/17/2014 9:13 AM, Axb wrote:
On 02/17/2014 03:09 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:43 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in
72_scores.cf but
without score (and thus default 1.0) in 50_scores.cf.
... a mistake happened
On 02/17/2014 03:09 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:43 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in
72_scores.cf but
without score (and thus default 1.0) in 50_scores.cf.
... a mistake happened apparently?
I'll look and see.
On 2/17/2014 8:43 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in
72_scores.cf but
without score (and thus default 1.0) in 50_scores.cf.
... a mistake happened apparently?
I'll look and see. I've never tried to promote a bayes rule so it
On 02/17/2014 02:43 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in 72_scores.cf
but
without score (and thus default 1.0) in 50_scores.cf.
... a mistake happened apparently?
BAYES_999 is *not* BAYES_99
# Enhance Bayes scoring for super-
Hello,
seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in 72_scores.cf but
without score (and thus default 1.0) in 50_scores.cf.
... a mistake happened apparently?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising t
47 matches
Mail list logo
