On 01/09/2015 01:23 AM, Adam Katz wrote:
Ran these against my corpus. Here are the worst performers (lots in
common with RW's complaints):
*SPAM% HAM%S/O NAME*
0.013 0.153 0.080 __RULEGEN_PHISH_BLR6YY
0.006 0.286 0.022 __RULEGEN_PHISH_0ATBRI
0.008 0.334 0.023 __RULEGEN_PHISH_L3I
Am 09.01.2015 um 02:01 schrieb David Flanigan:
Excellent feature - I look forward to using it.
It does lead me to another question however. Using a spam honeypot would
lead to a large corpus of SPAM. My corpus of HAM, but its very nature,
would be much smaller. Are there any negative implicati
Excellent feature - I look forward to using it.
It does lead me to another question however. Using a spam honeypot would
lead to a large corpus of SPAM. My corpus of HAM, but its very nature,
would be much smaller. Are there any negative implication to training
the Bayesian filters with thousa
Ran these against my corpus. Here are the worst performers (lots in
common with RW's complaints):
*SPAM% HAM%S/O NAME*
0.013 0.153 0.080 __RULEGEN_PHISH_BLR6YY
0.006 0.286 0.022 __RULEGEN_PHISH_0ATBRI
0.008 0.334 0.023 __RULEGEN_PHISH_L3I0Z5
0.002 0.300 0.006 __RULEGEN_PHISH_LG
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015, Alex Regan wrote:
How about using a domain specifically for creating a honeypot, of
you only need an email@address no point in registering a domain soley
for this, some might think its better, but I see no real advantage to it
over using a well known existing domain, inf
>>> How about using a domain specifically for creating a honeypot
>> you only need an email@address no point in registering a domain soley
>> for this, some might think its better, but I see no real advantage
>This represents the largest problem I have, because any well-known existing
domain h
Am 08.01.2015 um 22:57 schrieb Alex Regan:
On 01/07/2015 02:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 07.01.2015 um 20:23 schrieb Alex:
I'm also wondering what exactly you're taking from these messages that
are received? Are you blocking based on IP? Creating header/body
rules? Those are usually transfe
How about using a domain specifically for creating a honeypot, of
you only need an email@address no point in registering a domain soley
for this, some might think its better, but I see no real advantage to it
over using a well known existing domain, infact if you examine your logs
you might s
On 01/07/2015 02:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 07.01.2015 um 20:23 schrieb Alex:
I'm also wondering what exactly you're taking from these messages that
are received? Are you blocking based on IP? Creating header/body
rules? Those are usually transferable to other systems, but what about
baye
On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> so you tested what happend if all plugins is disabled ?
Ah, no, I did not do that. I saw no need since I actually want to use the
plugins... =) So no, I guess I did not quite address you concern.
--- Amir
Amir Caspi skrev den 2015-01-08 19:29:
I have various plugins enabled including (but not limited to) Razor,
Pyzor, DCC, SpamCop, and Bayes. ifplugin works just fine over here.
so you tested what happend if all plugins is disabled ?
my consern is not its not working when enabled all
denpency
On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> no need to sorry, its just me that hate to see more and more systems runs on
> autopilot and just want to have it fixed by doing nothing on the maintainer
> side of view,
Perl is maintained on the CentOS side, they backport a bunch of updat
Eric Broch skrev den 2015-01-08 18:47:
Sorry, Benny I meant 5.8.8 is the latest version on RHEL 5 / COS 5. I
mistyped.
no need to sorry, its just me that hate to see more and more systems
runs on autopilot and just want to have it fixed by doing nothing on the
maintainer side of view, now yo
On 1/8/2015 10:28 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2015-01-08 17:18:
>> On 1/8/2015 10:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 08.01.2015 um 16:51 schrieb Eric Broch:
I read through the release announcements for Spamassassin 3.4.0 (I'm
currently running 3.3.2) and not
Am 08.01.2015 um 18:28 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2015-01-08 17:18:
On 1/8/2015 10:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 08.01.2015 um 16:51 schrieb Eric Broch:
I read through the release announcements for Spamassassin 3.4.0 (I'm
currently running 3.3.2) and noticed it was
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2015-01-08 17:18:
On 1/8/2015 10:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 08.01.2015 um 16:51 schrieb Eric Broch:
I read through the release announcements for Spamassassin 3.4.0 (I'm
currently running 3.3.2) and noticed it was tested with perl 5.18.2.
Can
Spamassassin 3.4.0 b
On 1/8/2015 10:41 AM, MAYER Hans wrote:
I am using SA in combination with mimedefang over many years very
successfully. Thanks to the SA team for this great peace of software.
My environment SpamAssassin version 3.3.2 running on Perl version
5.12.4 on Sparc Solaris 11.2
My local rules are s
On 1/8/2015 10:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 08.01.2015 um 16:51 schrieb Eric Broch:
I read through the release announcements for Spamassassin 3.4.0 (I'm
currently running 3.3.2) and noticed it was tested with perl 5.18.2. Can
Spamassassin 3.4.0 be run safely with perl 5.5.8 which is the lates
Dear All,
I am using SA in combination with mimedefang over many years very successfully.
Thanks to the SA team for this great peace of software.
My environment SpamAssassin version 3.3.2 running on Perl version 5.12.4 on
Sparc Solaris 11.2
My local rules are saved in /etc/mail/sa-mimedefang
I am running 3.4.0 on CentOS 5.11 with perl 5.8.8 with no issues whatsoever.
--- Amir
thumbed via iPhone
> On Jan 8, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Eric Broch wrote:
>
> List,
> I read through the release announcements for Spamassassin 3.4.0 (I'm
> currently running 3.3.2) and noticed it was tested with per
Am 08.01.2015 um 16:51 schrieb Eric Broch:
I read through the release announcements for Spamassassin 3.4.0 (I'm
currently running 3.3.2) and noticed it was tested with perl 5.18.2. Can
Spamassassin 3.4.0 be run safely with perl 5.5.8 which is the latest for
RHEL 5 or with perl 5.10.1 which is th
List,
I read through the release announcements for Spamassassin 3.4.0 (I'm
currently running 3.3.2) and noticed it was tested with perl 5.18.2. Can
Spamassassin 3.4.0 be run safely with perl 5.5.8 which is the latest for
RHEL 5 or with perl 5.10.1 which is the latest for RHEL 6?
Eric
22 matches
Mail list logo
