On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:52:10 -0400
Bill Cole wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2015, at 8:18, RW wrote:
>
> > YMMV but personally I've never had a single ham hit BAYES_99.
> > There's currently no evidence to suggest that the OP would have any
> > problem with short-circuiting on it.
>
> Experiences with that
Am 22.07.2015 um 15:52 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 22.07.15 10:09, Reindl Harald wrote:
i doubt that you really want that and even if for sure not for
BAYES_99 but BAYES_999, it makes no sense - bayes alone is not the
only decision in a scoring system, it's one component
that said from
On 22.07.15 10:09, Reindl Harald wrote:
i doubt that you really want that and even if for sure not for
BAYES_99 but BAYES_999, it makes no sense - bayes alone is not the
only decision in a scoring system, it's one component
that said from someone scoring BAYES_999 with 7.9 while milter-reject
is
On 22 Jul 2015, at 8:18, RW wrote:
YMMV but personally I've never had a single ham hit BAYES_99. There's
currently no evidence to suggest that the OP would have any problem
with short-circuiting on it.
Experiences with that absolutely do vary, widely. Keep in mind that
Bayesian classification
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 21:31:57 -0400
Bill Shirley wrote:
> I'm looking into modifying my spam processing script so it will
> report spam to Razor. From the Spamassassin Wiki:
> https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ReportingSpam I should use:
> spamassassin -r < message.txt
> It states "The mes
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 03:31:04 +
Roman Gelfand wrote:
> I think the issue was because I never ran sa-learn --sync.
That only matters if you set
bayes_learn_to_journal 1
On 7/21/2015 8:55 PM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
It seems that if DKIM or SPF is verified, the bayesian learning
doesn't matter.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_99,BAYES_999,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no
version=3.3.2
If you me
Am 22.07.2015 um 14:18 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:40:12 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Am 22.07.2015 um 05:05 schrieb Roman Gelfand:
shortcircuit BAYES_99 spam
shortcircuit BAYES_00 ham
On 22.07.15 10:09, Reindl Harald wrote:
i doubt that you really want that and even if for
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:40:12 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >Am 22.07.2015 um 05:05 schrieb Roman Gelfand:
> >>shortcircuit BAYES_99 spam
> >>shortcircuit BAYES_00 ham
>
> On 22.07.15 10:09, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >i doubt that you really want that and even if for sure not for
> >BAYES_99
Am 22.07.2015 um 13:40 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
Am 22.07.2015 um 05:05 schrieb Roman Gelfand:
shortcircuit BAYES_99 spam
shortcircuit BAYES_00 ham
On 22.07.15 10:09, Reindl Harald wrote:
i doubt that you really want that and even if for sure not for
BAYES_99 but BAYES_999, it makes no
On 21.07.15 21:31, Bill Shirley wrote:
I'm looking into modifying my spam processing script so it will report spam to
Razor.
IIRC Razor says it should only be fed up manually (FYI)
From the Spamassassin Wiki: https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ReportingSpam
I should use:
spamassass
Am 22.07.2015 um 05:05 schrieb Roman Gelfand:
shortcircuit BAYES_99 spam
shortcircuit BAYES_00 ham
On 22.07.15 10:09, Reindl Harald wrote:
i doubt that you really want that and even if for sure not for
BAYES_99 but BAYES_999, it makes no sense - bayes alone is not the
only decision in a scori
Am 22.07.2015 um 05:05 schrieb Roman Gelfand:
shortcircuit BAYES_99 spam
shortcircuit BAYES_00 ham
i doubt that you really want that and even if for sure not for BAYES_99
but BAYES_999, it makes no sense - bayes alone is not the only decision
in a scoring system, it's one component
that sa
13 matches
Mail list logo
