John Hardin writes:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, micah anderson wrote:
>
>> John Hardin writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, micah anderson wrote:
>
> OK, I can see about adding some mobile MUA exclusions. Any FP headers you
> can provide (directly) will be helpful. Go ahead and sanitize the
> recipi
John Hardin writes:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, RW wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
>> John Hardin wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, micah anderson wrote:
>>>
>>
I searched my pile of mail that I have from two ice ages ago, and I
did find 6 messages that were hits of thi
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, RW wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, micah anderson wrote:
I searched my pile of mail that I have from two ice ages ago, and I
did find 6 messages that were hits of this rule, one of them was
spam, five of them were
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, micah anderson wrote:
>
> > I searched my pile of mail that I have from two ice ages ago, and I
> > did find 6 messages that were hits of this rule, one of them was
> > spam, five of them were this person trying t
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, micah anderson wrote:
John Hardin writes:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, micah anderson wrote:
but how can I tell how many messages are part of the corpus?
As RW said, hover over the percentages.
Thanks.
Also, the percentages seem very low: 1.5192% Spam, and .0005%
Ham... 1
John Hardin writes:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, micah anderson wrote:
>
>> but how can I tell how many messages are part of the corpus?
>
> As RW said, hover over the percentages.
Thanks.
>> Also, the percentages seem very low: 1.5192% Spam, and .0005%
>> Ham... 1.5% seems low to me to be adding 3.5
s_corpus=1&s_g_over_time=1#overtime
That run only has three masscheck corpora. You might want to look earlier
or later to a run that has more, for example:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20180814-r1837997-n/FRNAME_IN_MSG_NO_SUBJ/detail
and I see the S/O value is 1.0, which is a rule that hit
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 11:38:27 -0400
micah anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to understand the ruleQA results because I'm trying to
> track down how common the rule FRNAME_IN_MSG_NO_SUBJ is spammy.
>
> I load the latest rules:
> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20180813-r1837926-n/FRNAME_IN_MSG_N
Hi,
I'm trying to understand the ruleQA results because I'm trying to track
down how common the rule FRNAME_IN_MSG_NO_SUBJ is spammy.
I load the latest rules:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20180813-r1837926-n/FRNAME_IN_MSG_NO_SUBJ/detail?s_corpus=1&s_g_over_time=1#overtime
and I see the S/O
