On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 09:44:21 AM Olivier Nicole wrote:
> My only restriction is that FuzzyOCR uses it's own list of spam words
> instead of pushing back the decoded text to SA for SA to analyze.
This is necessary because of the poor quality of the OCR. It's only going to
be useful if th
On Thursday, July 25, 2013 11:31:57 PM Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> You have trained more ham than spam. That's not necessarily a problem,
> and opinions differ greatly. But it might be indication your Bayes is
> skewed.
Hmm. I'm not really sure how that can be. Anything detected as spam is
rejec
On Thursday, July 25, 2013 05:15:19 AM Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 21:53 -0400, Ian Turner wrote:
> > They are moderately low-scoring, sadly (I wouldn't have noticed
> > otherwise!),
> > mainly due to bayes poison. A typical message looks like thi
On Thursday, July 25, 2013 03:23:39 AM Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 20:28 -0400, Ian Turner wrote:
> > I notice that the old rule ADDRESS_IN_SUBJECT was dropped starting in
> > SpamAssassin 3.3 (The change is in bug 5123 and commit 467038). Lately,
> >
Hello list,
I notice that the old rule ADDRESS_IN_SUBJECT was dropped starting in
SpamAssassin 3.3 (The change is in bug 5123 and commit 467038). Lately,
however, I've started getting a lot of spam again where the To: address is in
the subject. Perhaps it's time to evaluate restoring this rule?
On Monday, April 08, 2013 05:06:57 PM Walter Hurry wrote:
> I agree that dev-nulling is generally a bad idea, but there may be
> exceptions.
>
> For example, I dump everything from hinet.net straight onto the floor.
FWIW, I get ham from hinet.net.
IMHO, it is not appropriate to drop mail no matt
On Friday, October 19, 2012 01:55:33 PM John Wilcock wrote:
> Le 19/10/2012 13:22, Ian Turner a écrit :
> > I meant something to specifically pick out words like phArmACy.
>
> You could try a rule with a negative lookahead to exclude the correct
> casing, something l
Hi Martin,
On Friday, October 19, 2012 03:04:44 AM Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > 3. Speaking of Penis, I'm surprised there isn't already a rule
> >
> >looking for the word in subjects, let alone in combination with
> >"Enlarge".
> >Is this intentional?
>
> The rule:
>
> header RULENAME
3. Speaking of Penis, I'm surprised there isn't already a rule
looking for the word in subjects, let alone in combination with "Enlarge".
Is this intentional?
4. I see there is already a rule for puctuation-obfuscated subjects;
what about one for case-obfuscated sub
On Monday 04 December 2006 16:19, John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ian Turner wrote:
> > When used in combination with, say, DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO,
> > RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL, and RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET, this rule can help
> > make a more solid prediction.
>
> The per
Followup on my earlier message...
On Monday 04 December 2006 11:11, Ian Turner wrote:
> Yup. All of the FPs in my corpus are outlook messages with inline images.
> But it turns out that some of those are also spam; the actual FP rate is
The actual FP rate, eliminating false false positive
On Monday 04 December 2006 01:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> this would trap mail using outlook "stationery".
> I dont really like it, but I get it in wanted mail.
Yup. All of the FPs in my corpus are outlook messages with inline images. But
it turns out that some of those are also spam; the actu
but works well in
conjunction with Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::ImageInfo.
Thoughts on this rule?
--Ian Turner
13 matches
Mail list logo
