Hi all - about a year ago, I displayed the results of my corpus as:
331,840 nspam
2,218,218 nham
for a 6.68::1 ratio of ham-to-spam.
While everything seemed to be getting scored properly, someone suggested
that it is
safer to have it closer to a 1-to-1 ratio, and recommended I change the ham
>Ben wrote:
>Whenever I run sa-learn it claims to learn from every message
regardless of
whether its being run immediately after being run on the same folder.
This was happening to me as well, but I was not running sa-learn from
the
correct account. SpamAssassin was installed by user "exim, so t
>kdg wrote:
>If you're running a sitewide AWL on any kind of scale beyond a few tens
of domains, and a couple hundred accounts, you should probably look at
putting it in SQL - it's a *lot* easier to maintain there.
It is one domain, with 20,000 accounts. I will see about using SQL.
Thanks.
>We
Hi all,
Back in the spring, someone mentioned that it is good to have your
ham/spam ratio close
to even. I have a site-wide set-up and while it seemed to be working
perfectly, I did notice
that when I did an "sa-learn -dump magic", my ham-to-spam ratio was
almost 7::1 (2,200,000
ham to on
>127.0.0.1 is not remote host :/
>did you send it for testing ?
Nope. This was a real, live message from the outside world.
>make sure that exim do send remote ip to sa, else it will work
badly, also that exim does not accept and bounce, i have seen it, if
its spam then reject
I'm pretty sure o
Hi all,
I just noticed that we have had auto_whitelisting turned off since
2005 (!). I just turned it
back on (first deleting the auto_whitelist file in
/home/exim/.spamassassin (we run a site-wide
installation) and ensuring that file was re-created after restarting
spamd). It seems to
I may be able to answer my own question, as something like this was
asked a few
weeks ago and John Hardin said that AWL is a misleading name, as it is
just giving an
"average" score, not necessarily whitelisting something. Thanks John.
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Savoy, Jim wrote:
>> [23409] dbg: locker: safe_lock: trying to get lock on
>> /var/spool/spamassassin/bayes with 300 timeout
>> [23409] dbg: locker: safe_lock: timed out after 300 seconds
>>
>> (it sat for 3 minutes at each of the two "30
Hi all,
I am running SA 3.2.5 and exim 4.69 on a RedHat Enterprise Linux box
(release 4, Nahant Update 6).
I noticed today that our /var/log/maillog was spewing out a lot of:
"cannot open bayes databases /var/spool/spamassassin/bayes_* R/W:
lock failed: Interrupted syste
John Hardin wrote:
>Note I said "raw"; by that I meant "before any filtering".
Ah.
> Also, I was speaking about manual training, though I could see where
>autolearn might lead to the above ratio.
I would say that about 99% of our training comes from autolearn. I only
feed (with sa-learn) what
>> 0.000 0 206774 0 non-token data: nspam
>> 0.000 01515235 0 non-token data: nham
> John Hardin wrote:
>I got the impression that the goal was to have a ratio that roughly
reflected the spam:ham ratio of your raw mail stream. If Jim gets 17
times
m
>>On Sat, 07 Feb 2009, Ricardo Kleemann wrote:
>> I have SA working very well for me, but there are still a few cases
of spam
>> that are very persistent, I still get a considerable amount of spam
that SA
>> doesn't catch.
>> However, what is annoying is that no matter how much I feed through
>
>
>
> Apparently yesterday I push the wrong button in my control
panel which
> caused our email server to block all incoming emails.
Cadet Stimpy - I specifically told you *not* to press the
[History Eraser Button]! Now look what
ItsMikeE wrote:
> I have been running this rule for a day now, and am trapping
> the spams with rules 1 and 2.
I too just started running these rules, but noticed there were a lot
more NICE_GIRL_02's than NICE_GIRL_01's being hit (about twice as many
of the former).
I think you need to change:
14 matches
Mail list logo
