h one that is ;)
--j.
Joe Flowers writes:
Thanks Justin. I am embedding Perl inside a C program, so I hope this is
still true. It used to return a non-NULL or at least the following call
used to always return a "count" of 1 and not 0 like it is now after the
SA upgrade.
count = p
n::PerMsgStatus::finish",
(G_ARRAY|G_EVAL|G_KEEPERR));
Is your answer still the same?
Thanks a lot!
Joe
Justin Mason wrote:
hi Joe --
just ignore the return value of finish() -- it's a void method.
(note how it doesn't mention a return value in its POD doc ;)
--j.
Joe Flowers wr
Hello Everyone,
I'm getting a weird error message that I have never gotten before over
several versions of SA. I just upgraded from "SpamAssassin version 3.1.7
running on Perl version 5.8.8" to "SpamAssassin version 3.2.0 running on
Perl version 5.8.8". Now, my calls to
Mail::SpamAssassin::Pe
Yep, a problem I continually get is that people want to make email into
something that it is not.
It's not a credit card or an ATM card or Driver's license or a Visa or etc.
Joe
jay plesset wrote:
It never fails to amaze me now many mail server admins ask for ways to
break the RFC's in the in
I assume a rule already exists for this but just in the remote chance
it's not...
If the text with a URL in a hyperlink does not match the href, then the
message should get more spam points.
For example,
HREF="http://StringA";>http://StringB
if(StringA != StringB) { Add more spam points. }
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
You can use any quoting mechanism you like:
...("This is a programmer's ...")
...([EMAIL PROTECTED] is a programmer's ...@)
etc.
Sorry for the Perl question.
Is the "q" in "([EMAIL PROTECTED] is a programmer's ...@)" a typo?
No, it isn't. It means "QUOTE
Even if spamd is process forking and not spawning worker threads, is it
possible with the latest production versions of Perl and SA to make it
muli-threaded all the way through?
When I say "all the way through", I'm wanting to know if, even in a
threaded implementation, would mutex/semaphore/e
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:57:52PM -0400, Joe Flowers wrote:
I'd prefer to use M::SA->check_message_text(), but if I do a
M::SA->check_message_text('This is a programmer's nightmare.'), then
M::SA->check_message_text() will choke because
($status->is_spam()) {
$message = $status->rewrite_mail();
}
else {
...
}
...
$status->finish();
------------
Joe Flowers wrote:
Hello everyone! :)
Can I get away with this wit
#x27;t hurt or help?
Thanks!
Joe
---
D1161764311
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
A3548708497
X1
Lwallwk wallwk 12
---
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:35:07PM -0400, Joe Flowers wrote:
If I pre-pend a message's Envelope to it's Body, can Spamassassin d
David B Funk wrote:
When the milter is passing the message to spamd, it is easy to add
synthesized headers (such as 'Return-Path:' & 'X-Envelope-To:') to pass
envelope addresses to SA (that's what I did with the milter that I use).
Still, pre-pending is 10x easier than inserting.
Ken A wrote:
It should be mentioned that envelope To: is not there for a reason.
:-( Including it in the header will remove the privacy enabled by Bcc,
so if you have privacy considerations to worry about, you might think
twice.
I pre-pend the envelope to a copy of the message and then send
Hey guys,
If I pre-pend a message's Envelope to it's Body, can Spamassassin do
anything useful with it?
Joe
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
You may also want to
look at M::SA->check_message_text().
Theo,
I'd prefer to use M::SA->check_message_text(), but if I do a
M::SA->check_message_text('This is a programmer's nightmare.'), then
M::SA->check_message_text() will choke because of the (') in the middle
Hello everyone! :)
Can I get away with this without any memory or resource leaks? Is this OK?
Thanks!
Joe
my $spamtest = Mail::SpamAssassin->new();
my $status = $spamtest->check($s
Do you guys ever get parse() to bail out on a message?
I seem to get that every once in a while.
my $mail = $spamtest->parse($message);
Thanks!
Joe
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 04:36:24PM -0400, Joe Flowers wrote:
Is there a way to set the required_score "on the fly" between each email
message test?
You haven't stated what you're trying to do, but you could update the
user preference between spa
Is there a way to set the required_score "on the fly" between each email
message test?
I tried changing the required_score in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
but it is unsurprisingly not rescanned/reloaded between each message
that is tested. It would really be cool (not to mention extremely
ssage-
From: Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:05:25 -0400
Subject: Re: 3.1.2?
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 05:32:45PM -0400, Joe Flowers wrote:
> Any educated guesses on when 3.1.2 will be released?
> From a selfish point
I guess I'll ask this question and then run like heck
Any educated guesses on when 3.1.2 will be released?
From a selfish point of view, I'm trying to kill several upgrades with
one stone.
Thanks!
Joe
Justin,
Do you have suggestions on how I should come up with the two boundary
lines and what do I do with the "unsure" messages?
I'm all ears.
Joe
Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
btw, I was just rereading this -- an interesting approach you might
want t
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Joe Flowers wrote on Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:09:29 -0400:
That's bad, really bad
detection ...
No. It's good, really good detection.
You should improve that instead of trying to find a
barrier which gives you the best FP:FN ratio.
I'm not trying t
> BTW, if anyone knows a command line program that can easy run thu a
bunch of mbox files and tell how many messages are in them, I will report
> back how many ham and how many spam messages that I have fed to bayes.
Well, I thought this might give some good stats on the FP:FN ratio, but
I for
jdow wrote:
> The greater the separation the
> better the results for a decision point between them.
> But anything you can do that widens the
> typical score distribution between ham and spam is a good thing.
Amen
nd tell how many messages are in them, I will
report back how many ham and how many spam messages that I have fed to
bayes. It's far from perfect, but it may offer some interesting info
regarding the 100:1 (fn:fp) ratio.
Joe
Matt Kettler wrote:
Joe Flowers wrote:
Matt Kettler w
Thanks Jason!
That's good, new info for me. That'll help me *at the very least*
visualize what I am trying to do a little better. I've been very curious
to know what the rough shapes of those graphs look like.
Joe
Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
There'
Matt Kettler wrote:
The only problem I see with this approach is that it treats false positives and
false negatives as being equally bad.
We do get many more false negatives than false positives, even though we
don't get false positives very often - they are rare.
We certainly don't get 1
Loren Wilton wrote:
This is quite interesting, and seems reasonably obvious that with the right
sort of mail (at least, maybe with any mail) this shoudl work better, since
it self tunes to your conditions. It does of course assume a reasonable
fp/fn rate to start, but SA is generally pretty goo
I don't know if this will help anyone or not, but I wanted to report
back just in case.
In early April, I completely unhinged the dividing line between what SA
score is used to mark a message as spam or ham (5.00 = default). This
allows the system and this dividing line to drift "freely" to an
SA 3.02
Is there a way to make sa-learn ignore custom (non-SA) headers?
Thanks!
Joe
Payam:
You need to read the license and follow it to the letter, and I encourage you
to donate to them anyway.
Joe
shabanip wrote:
but i want to use it in a commercial project
really i won't need to pay??!!!
Payam Shabanian
shabanip -at- avapajoohesh.com
AFAIK you don't need one :-D Tho, I bet
Before I'm testing each message with SpamAssassin, I'm prepending the
envelope to the email message.
Can anyone comment on the positive or ill-effects this might have on the
SA scoringI'm not running the envelope-pre-pended-messages thru
bayes (sa-learn) though. I usually run messages thru s
oing to help
me and many others in the end.
Again, I apologize Michael, but I do hope you understand that from my
perspective, what I've done is not a waste of time.
Sincerely,
Joe
Michael Parker wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 01:16:39AM -0500, Joe Flowers wrote:
I know of that implemen
ent.
Do as you wish, but I would bet my ragged little implementation is built
on a potentially much much faster and much more scalable and much more
generic (say many more options) foundation.
i.e., I fear not.
Joe
Michael Parker wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:55:24AM -0500, Joe Flowers wro
sassin itself has to be doing an incredibly
good job at identifying and scoring these messages from a relativistic
point of view; otherwise, there is no way I would be seeing these great
results, and I probably would have run into a "wall" long before now.
Joe
Joe Emenaker wrote:
Joe Flowers wrote:
Very preliminary results are no less than AWESOME.
So... how are you implementing the "drifting" spam threshold?
- Joe
l
yet. It seems to be drifting between average SA scores of -1.44 to -0.5
instead of being fixed at 5.00 as before. I hope the SA developers will
take notice and improve upon the idea.
Joe
Joe Flowers wrote:
Later today I'll be implementing a "drifting" spam/ham dividing line
(
I'm having a hard time finding the docs on this (I saw them once) where
get_hits and get_required_hits are deprecated.
Is there a mapping/listing of these deprecated calls and what the new
calls are?
Thanks.
J
Interesting Chris...thanks for the feedback...at least maybe I'm still
on the planet somewhere..
My "monthly" word means that I've been feeling too good about myself
lately, so I'm due for a slap-down on how dumb I am.
J
Chr. von Stuckrad wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005
Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Joe Flowers wrote:
Later today I'll be implementing a "drifting" spam/ham dividing line
(one "line" for the entire system - not individually set per email
account) to see how effective it is or
Later today I'll be implementing a "drifting" spam/ham dividing line
(one "line" for the entire system - not individually set per email
account) to see how effective it is or how effective it appears to be.
I'm curious to know if the dividing line will drift into a wall on some
self-imposed bou
A possible mini spamd replacement ("saserver") and Integrating
SpamAssassin with Novell NetMail - the AddHeadr/saserver pair.
http://www.nofreewill.com/donationware/
Joe
I liked the O'Reilly book a lot too, eventhough the Perl code on page 67
is apparently not right.
Still like that book a lot. It has been a great helpHighly
recommended here.
Joe
> You make a valid point in that, if graphed separately, ham and spam
should show up as two separate curves on a graph.
> However, there *is* overlap,
Yes, I expect overlap or SA would be perfect with no FPs or FNs.
> and spam and ham (separately, or together) scores are *not* normally
distribut
My anti-spam system design went something like this (I integrated
NetMail running on Novell NetWare to SpamAssassin running on SuSe or
RedHat Linux):
1. To me, it's seems like most of the "action" in SpamAssassin (by
default), occurs around the Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus::get_hits =
5.0
Joe E.:
Thanks for getting past the usual knee-jerk reaction and seeing.
Joe F.
Joe Emenaker wrote:
Steve Bertrand wrote:
> SA isn't about the "average" it's about the accuracy.
If this were the case, then why aren't the spam scores
("*required_hits*") for each message either 1 or 0 and nothing
> Many people have tried to give you advice,
Yes, and I appreciate everything that everyone has said and there is
some information in no responses too.
> for something that really
> was not clarified as to why
> you were trying to achieve what you were.
Because answering why takes the focus off o
> SA isn't about the "average" it's about the accuracy.
If this were the case, then why aren't the spam scores
("*required_hits*") for each message either 1 or 0 and nothing else?
If your "spread" is good and it's just the threshold that needs
adjusting,
it would be trivial to make a rule that fires on every message and give > it a score equal to the desired difference...
Thanks Pierre. That may be what I have to do, if noone has a better idea.
BUT, that does imply that I
Hey Steve,
I was hoping not to do it that way because besides putting the human
mistake-prone factor back in, it skews and warps the heck out of the
spam and ham curves that the SA developers have worked so hard to get
near perfect and trumps their priceless knowledge and experience.
When I say
> why do you need to alter the average scores of ham/spam?
What a horrible horrible mess if we can't!
One example:
All of my users have set their "optimal" spam thresholds to some number
between 0.0 and 10.0.
If the SA developers correctly shift around test scores, add new and/or
improved algorit
Help please!
If the average spam score of all of my ham messages is 1.0 and the
average spam score of all of my spam messages is 3.0, then what is the
best way to move the average_of_ these_two_averages (2.0) back up to 5.0?
The result being that I need my current average score for ham messages
51 matches
Mail list logo
