On 2/18/14 8:52 PM, "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
>I am not disagreeing it would have been an interesting approach but the
>rules were promoted accidentally to begin with. I'm just doing triage
>to get things functional right now
Totally understand, and I didn't mean to whinge. The bright side is i
On 2/18/2014 5:54 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
I use several meta rules that include BAYES_99 and now I'm having to
go rewrite those rules to include (BAYES_99 || BAYES_999).
Which raises the question-- is there a performance hit for making meta
rules include other meta rules? That is:
is
meta_DP
On 2/18/2014 5:44 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
BAYES_99 used to hit for emails that the naive Bayesian
classifier identified as 99% to 100% spam.
BAYES_99 is now split into two rules to give it finer gradient on scores
for different percentages:
BAYES_99 99% to 99.9%
BAYES_999 99.9% to 100%
It would
On 2/17/2014 7:19 PM, Alex wrote:
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 do
On 2/18/2014 6:05 PM, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Feb 18, 2014, at 3:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Is there some reason the Bayes scores can't/shouldn't be static?
Indeed, I am wondering why Bayes would be auto-scored at all. By definition,
Bayes high scores should match only on spam, low scores should
On 2/18/2014 5:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Dave Pooser wrote:
BAYES_99 used to hit for emails that the naive Bayesian
classifier identified as 99% to 100% spam.
BAYES_99 is now split into two rules to give it finer gradient on
scores
for different percentages:
BAYES_99 99
On Feb 18, 2014, at 3:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> Is there some reason the Bayes scores can't/shouldn't be static?
>
Indeed, I am wondering why Bayes would be auto-scored at all. By definition,
Bayes high scores should match only on spam, low scores should match only on
ham. That's not perf
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Dave Pooser wrote:
BAYES_99 used to hit for emails that the naive Bayesian
classifier identified as 99% to 100% spam.
BAYES_99 is now split into two rules to give it finer gradient on scores
for different percentages:
BAYES_99 99% to 99.9%
BAYES_999 99.9% to 100%
It woul
>It would make my life a lot easier if instead BAYES_999 were an additional
>rule.
That is, if BAYES_999 fired *in addition to* BAYES_99.
> I use several meta rules that include BAYES_99 and now I'm having to
>go rewrite those rules to include (BAYES_99 || BAYES_999).
Which raises the question--
>BAYES_99 used to hit for emails that the naive Bayesian
>classifier identified as 99% to 100% spam.
>
>BAYES_99 is now split into two rules to give it finer gradient on scores
>for different percentages:
>
>BAYES_99 99% to 99.9%
>BAYES_999 99.9% to 100%
It would make my life a lot easier if inste
Kris Deugau wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > How hard would it be to use SpamAssassin's mail handling routines to
> > extract the Received: IP address header chain using the already
> > configured trusted_networks configuration? Does anyone have any hints
> > on how I might go about doing this? If
Yes, sa-update should fix the issue as soon as we are pushing new rules.
Regards,
KAM
Helmut Schneider wrote:
>Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>> > all over sudden all my installations (3.3.1 and 3.3.2) show
>> >
>> > rules: meta test AC_SPAMMY_URI_PATTERNS6 has undefined dependency
>> > '__AC_RHASH_
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> > all over sudden all my installations (3.3.1 and 3.3.2) show
> >
> > rules: meta test AC_SPAMMY_URI_PATTERNS6 has undefined dependency
> > '__AC_RHASH_URIb'
> >
> > when checking rules. Whats's wrong?
>
> That should not have auto promoted and has already been fixed.
That should not have auto promoted and has already been fixed. Will hopefully
get the rules.update engine working tonight.
Regards,
KAM
Helmut Schneider wrote:
>Hi,
>
>all over sudden all my installations (3.3.1 and 3.3.2) show
>
>rules: meta test AC_SPAMMY_URI_PATTERNS6 has undefined dependen
Helmut Schneider wrote:
> all over sudden all my installations (3.3.1 and 3.3.2) show
To be more precise:
Feb 18 20:48:03.261 [68576] dbg: rules: meta test
AC_SPAMMY_URI_PATTERNS6 has undefined dependency '__AC_RHASH_URIb'
Feb 18 20:48:03.261 [68576] dbg: rules: meta test
AC_SPAMMY_URI_PATTERNS6
Hi,
all over sudden all my installations (3.3.1 and 3.3.2) show
rules: meta test AC_SPAMMY_URI_PATTERNS6 has undefined dependency
'__AC_RHASH_URIb'
when checking rules. Whats's wrong?
Thanks, Helmut
On 2/18/2014 9:32 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Marc Perkel wrote:
Trying to do something complex and not sure how it's done. What I'm
looking for is to combine 2 conditions in a single regular expression
so that both have to be true for a match. Yes - I know I can make 2
SA ru
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. SpamAssassin already extracts tha
On 2/18/2014 12:22 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Trying to do something complex and not sure how it's done. What I'm
looking for is to combine 2 conditions in a single regular expression
so that both have to be true for a match. Yes - I know I can make 2 SA
rules and combine them but I bet there's a w
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > How hard would it be to use SpamAssassin's mail handling routines to
> > extract the Received: IP address header chain using the already
> > configured trusted_networks configuration?
>
> How hard? Depends... As usual.
>
> Is this a one-shot atte
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Marc Perkel wrote:
Trying to do something complex and not sure how it's done. What I'm looking
for is to combine 2 conditions in a single regular expression so that both
have to be true for a match. Yes - I know I can make 2 SA rules and combine
them but I bet there's a wa
Trying to do something complex and not sure how it's done. What I'm
looking for is to combine 2 conditions in a single regular expression so
that both have to be true for a match. Yes - I know I can make 2 SA
rules and combine them but I bet there's a way to do it in one
expression. For simplic
22 matches
Mail list logo
