Re: BAYES scores

2023-03-01 Thread Benny Pedersen
joe a skrev den 2023-02-28 17:37: Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are. I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY. Noted in a header this morning: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.] * 0.2 BAYES_999

Re: BAYES scores

2023-02-28 Thread Loren Wilton
From: "Bill Cole" It is my understanding that an automated rescoring job was run quite some time ago (before I was on the PMC) to generate the Bayes scores, which determined that to be the best supplemental score to give to the greater certainty. I was around in those days. My me

Re: BAYES scores

2023-02-28 Thread Benny Pedersen
joe a skrev den 2023-02-28 17:37: Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are. I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY. Noted in a header this morning: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.] * 0.2 BAYES_999

Re: BAYES scores

2023-02-28 Thread Bill Cole
thinker gets in a knot wondering why there is so little weight given to the more certain determination. It is my understanding that an automated rescoring job was run quite some time ago (before I was on the PMC) to generate the Bayes scores, which determined that to be the best supplemental score

Re: BAYES scores

2023-02-28 Thread hg user
>From my small experience... I score BAYES_999 with 2.00, it was suggested to me months ago. But nowadays I'd be more careful and do some more testing: I'd check which messages have only BAYES_99 and which have BAYES_999, If you are absolutely certain that BYES_999 are only and definitively spam,

Re: BAYES scores

2023-02-28 Thread joe a
On 2/28/2023 12:05 PM, Jeff Mincy wrote: > From: joe a > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:37:34 -0500 > > Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are. > I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY. > > Noted in a header this morning: > > * 3.5

Re: BAYES scores

2023-02-28 Thread Jeff Mincy
> From: joe a > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:37:34 -0500 > > Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are. > I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY. > > Noted in a header this morning: > > * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 1

BAYES scores

2023-02-28 Thread joe a
Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are. I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY. Noted in a header this morning: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.] * 0.2 BAYES_999 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99

Re: Bayes scores

2013-05-08 Thread Bowie Bailey
On 5/8/2013 12:06 PM, Niamh Holding wrote: Hello Bowie, Wednesday, May 8, 2013, 4:35:35 PM, you wrote: BB> makes a bit more sense. Not a lot, though to have BAYES_20 and BAYES_$) scoring the same. A 20-40% confidence level is not high enough to have a significant positive score nor is it lo

Re: Bayes scores

2013-05-08 Thread Niamh Holding
Hello Bowie, Wednesday, May 8, 2013, 4:35:35 PM, you wrote: BB> makes a bit more sense. Not a lot, though to have BAYES_20 and BAYES_$) scoring the same. -- Best regards, Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk pgpqBdg1MLCZD.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Bayes scores

2013-05-08 Thread Bowie Bailey
final score. In this case, Bayes thinks the message is ham, but is not confident enough to merit a negative score. Take a look at the full list of Bayes scores and it makes a bit more sense. score BAYES_00 0 0 -1.5 -1.9 score BAYES_05 0 0 -0.3 -0.5 score BAYES_20 0 0 -0.001 -0.001

Bayes scores

2013-05-08 Thread Niamh Holding
Hello Same score for BAYES_20 and BAYES_40 seems a bit strange 50_scores.cf:score BAYES_20 0 0 -0.001 -0.001 50_scores.cf:score BAYES_40 0 0 -0.001 -0.001 -- Best regards, Niamh mailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk pgpY3KK2wQ_uW.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: BAYES scores rewriting

2008-05-25 Thread mouss
Georgy Goshin wrote: Hi, score BAYES_00 0 0 -2.312 -2.599 score BAYES_05 0 0 -1.110 -1.110 score BAYES_20 0 0 -0.740 -0.740 score BAYES_40 0 0 -0.185 -0.185 score BAYES_50 0 0 0.001 0.001 score BAYES_60 0 0 1.0 1.0 score BAYES_80 0 0 2.0 2.0 score BAYES_95 0 0 3.0 3.0 score BAYES_99 0 0 3.5 3.5

Re: BAYES scores rewriting

2008-05-25 Thread Bob Proulx
Georgy Goshin wrote: > score BAYES_99 0 0 3.5 3.5 > What does these colums means, I want to modify them and this is why I want > to know. man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf score SYMBOLIC_TEST_NAME n.nn [ n.nn n.nn n.nn ] ... If only one valid score is listed, then that

BAYES scores rewriting

2008-05-25 Thread Georgy Goshin
Hi, score BAYES_00 0 0 -2.312 -2.599 score BAYES_05 0 0 -1.110 -1.110 score BAYES_20 0 0 -0.740 -0.740 score BAYES_40 0 0 -0.185 -0.185 score BAYES_50 0 0 0.001 0.001 score BAYES_60 0 0 1.0 1.0 score BAYES_80 0 0 2.0 2.0 score BAYES_95 0 0 3.0 3.0 score BAYES_99 0 0 3.5 3.5 What does these colu

Re: Those "Re: good obfupills" spams (bayes scores)

2006-05-02 Thread jdow
From: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> One is from my local congressman. I figure if I include his junk phone calls in my phone spam complaints (to him) the email should also be spam. I doubt I'll white list him. He and I don't agree much. I am much too libertarian for his Republican stance. If he'd s

Re: Those "Re: good obfupills" spams (bayes scores)

2006-05-02 Thread jdow
From: "Michael Monnerie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 67 SPAMs are 5-9.99 points, OK, for a record with regards to spam and ham I have had four come through between 5 and 7.99 points out of about 1600 messages in my personal mail buckets. Two were from "always-on" which I signed up for when Powell the

Re: Those "Re: good obfupills" spams (bayes scores)

2006-05-02 Thread Bart Schaefer
Incidentally, the FAQ answer for "HowScoresAreAssigned" on the SA wiki is out of date.

Re: Those "Re: good obfupills" spams (bayes scores)

2006-05-02 Thread Michael Monnerie
On Montag, 1. Mai 2006 17:51 Matt Kettler wrote: > Looking at my own current real-world maillogs, BAYES_99 matched 6,643 > messages last week. Of those, only 24 had total scores under 9.0. > (with BAYES_99 scoring 3.5, it would take a message with a total > score of less than 8.5 to drop below the

Re: Those "Re: good obfupills" spams (bayes scores)

2006-05-01 Thread jdow
rick that's been tickling my brain and the name not making it through the fog of old age is the Kalman Filter. You grade inputs per their confidence factor rather than punish them for being too good. This might be a better way to put together the rules scores and the Bayes scores. {^_^}

Re: Those "Re: good obfupills" spams (bayes scores)

2006-05-01 Thread jdow
er or actually kick them over. That said I have found that clever meta rules regarding specific sources and the BAYES scores have allowed me to widen my wasteland of scores between 4 and 10 lately. This may be an important trick to employ. The perceptron results show that the former is largely true. BAY

Re: Those "Re: good obfupills" spams (bayes scores)

2006-05-01 Thread jdow
From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jdow wrote: From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In SA 3.1.0 they did force-fix the scores of the bayes rules, > > particularly the high-end. The perceptron assigned BAYES_99 a > > score

RE: Those "Re: good obfupills" spams (bayes scores)

2006-05-01 Thread Bowie Bailey
Matt Kettler wrote: > Bowie Bailey wrote: > > > > The Bayes rules are not individual unrelated rules. Bayes is a > > series of rules indicating a range of probability that a message is > > spam or ham. You can argue over the exact scoring, but I can't see > > any reason to score BAYES_99 lower t

Re: Those "Re: good obfupills" spams (bayes scores)

2006-05-01 Thread Matt Kettler
Bowie Bailey wrote: > Matt Kettler wrote: >> It is perfectly reasonable to assume that most of the mail matching >> BAYES_99 also matches a large number of the stock spam rules that SA >> comes with. These highly-obvious mails are the model after which >> most SA rules are made in the first place.

RE: Those "Re: good obfupills" spams (bayes scores)

2006-05-01 Thread Bowie Bailey
jdow wrote: > From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In SA 3.1.0 they did force-fix the scores of the bayes rules, > > > particularly the high-end. The perceptron assigned BAYES_99 a > > > score of 1.89 in the 3.1.0 mass-check ru

Re: Those "Re: good obfupills" spams (bayes scores)

2006-04-29 Thread jdow
From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In SA 3.1.0 they did force-fix the scores of the bayes rules, particularly the high-end. The perceptron assigned BAYES_99 a score of 1.89 in the 3.1.0 mass-check run. The devs jacked it up to 3.50. Th

Re: Those "Re: good obfupills" spams (bayes scores)

2006-04-29 Thread jdow
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bart Schaefer wrote: On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Besides.. If you want to make a mathematics based argument against me, start by explaining how the perceptron mathematically is flawed. It assigned the original score based on real

Re: Those "Re: good obfupills" spams (bayes scores)

2006-04-29 Thread Bart Schaefer
On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In SA 3.1.0 they did force-fix the scores of the bayes rules, particularly the high-end. The perceptron assigned BAYES_99 a score of 1.89 in the 3.1.0 mass-check run. The devs jacked it up to 3.50. That does make me wonder if: 1) When BAYE

Re: Those "Re: good obfupills" spams (bayes scores)

2006-04-29 Thread Matt Kettler
Bart Schaefer wrote: > On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Besides.. If you want to make a mathematics based argument against me, >> start by explaining how the perceptron mathematically is flawed. It >> assigned the original score based on real-world data. > > Did it? I thought

RE: Bayes Scores Skipped/Not Applied: HAPPY RESOLUTION

2005-12-23 Thread John Urness
Hi Matt, I resolved the issue. Thanks for pointing me in a different direction- the rubber has not been meeting the road for about a week on this issue! After upgrading using CPAN I am getting BAYES scores (among others from the /usr/share/spamassassin dir). So apparently it was an installation

RE: Bayes Scores Skipped/Not Applied

2005-12-23 Thread John Urness
ttler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 3:08 PM To: John Urness Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Bayes Scores Skipped/Not Applied John Urness wrote: > > /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf > score ALL_TRUSTED 0 0 0 0 That is very concerning. Why

RE: Bayes Scores Skipped/Not Applied

2005-12-23 Thread John Urness
any BAYES scores. Here are a few examples: Message jBO1kTfX011690 from 141.157.60.60 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) to tomsawyer.com is spam, SBL+XBL, spamcop.net, SpamAssassin (score=8.364, required 4, RATWARE_RCVD_PF 3.60, SARE_GETFCK 0.68, URIBL_JP_SURBL 4.09) Message jBO1hXfX008995 from 24.175.86.36

RE: Bayes Scores Skipped/Not Applied

2005-12-23 Thread John Urness
database that was recreated and not an issue of multiple databases John -Original Message- From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 4:43 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Bayes Scores Skipped/Not Applied This seems strange: > H

Re: Bayes Scores Skipped/Not Applied

2005-12-23 Thread Loren Wilton
This seems strange: > Here is sa-learn --dump magic: > This shows that I have more than enough spam and ham > 0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version > 0.000 0 3754 0 non-token data: nspam > 0.000 0220 0 non-

Re: Bayes Scores Skipped/Not Applied

2005-12-23 Thread Matt Kettler
John Urness wrote: > > /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf > score ALL_TRUSTED 0 0 0 0 That is very concerning. Why'd you do that? 99.9% of the time the proper fix is to declare a trusted_networks. Disabling this rule merely covers up one symptom of a very pervasive problem (errant trust). > >

Bayes Scores Skipped/Not Applied

2005-12-23 Thread John Urness
Hi, I recently upgraded from spamassassin 3.0 to 3.1 and right away the amount of false negatives increased. I thought at first that it was because of the loss of dcc and razor (which surely is a factor), but on further investigation it appears that it is more related to the Bayes system. I have l

Re: Different BAYES scores

2005-05-24 Thread Matt Kettler
Chris Conn wrote: > Hello, > > I have just gotten around to upgrading my 2.64 SA servers to 3.0.3. I > have read the FAQ and searched the archives, so if the following > question has been asked or covered, please push me in the right > direction and I will be on my way > > Is there any docum

Different BAYES scores

2005-05-24 Thread Chris Conn
Hello, I have just gotten around to upgrading my 2.64 SA servers to 3.0.3. I have read the FAQ and searched the archives, so if the following question has been asked or covered, please push me in the right direction and I will be on my way Is there any documentation as to why the BAYES_

Re: Bayes scores Don't seem right

2004-10-24 Thread Jeff Chan
On Sunday, October 24, 2004, 9:57:21 AM, marti marti wrote: > I have just upgraded to V 3 and have noticed the bayes_99 scoring is a lot > lower, checking out the scores shows the scores are lower(RHS) for 99 than > 95 and that lower than 80, assuming this is wrong what should the scores be > scor

Bayes scores Don't seem right

2004-10-24 Thread marti
I have just upgraded to V 3 and have noticed the bayes_99 scoring is a lot lower, checking out the scores shows the scores are lower(RHS) for 99 than 95 and that lower than 80, assuming this is wrong what should the scores be score BAYES_60 0 0 3.515 0.372 score BAYES_80 0 0 3.608 2.087 score BAYE

Re: Bayes scores in SA 3.0

2004-09-30 Thread Nels Lindquist
On 30 Sep 2004 at 9:00, Chip Paswater wrote: > Does a human review the scores generated by the statistics engine? > > Doesn't it make sense to have more of a bell curve on the 2nd set of bayes > scores? > > If not, why not? > > The teeth seem seem to be taken out

Re: Bayes scores in SA 3.0

2004-09-30 Thread Chip Paswater
> > Hey guys, > > > > I was looking at the Bayes scores in 3.0 and had a couple of questions: > [...] > > > ... the FAQ ... read the FAQ ... > Great Bob, the FAQ says how the scores are generated, I surmised that. But these questions aren't in th

Re: Bayes scores in SA 3.0

2004-09-30 Thread Bob Apthorpe
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:34:28 -0700 Chip Paswater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey guys, > > I was looking at the Bayes scores in 3.0 and had a couple of questions: [...] ... the FAQ ... read the FAQ ... -- Bob

Bayes scores in SA 3.0

2004-09-30 Thread Chip Paswater
Hey guys, I was looking at the Bayes scores in 3.0 and had a couple of questions: score BAYES_00 0 0 -1.665 -2.599 score BAYES_05 0 0 -0.925 -0.413 score BAYES_20 0 0 -0.730 -1.951 score BAYES_40 0 0 -0.276 -1.096 score BAYES_50 0 0 1.567 0.001 score BAYES_60 0 0 3.515 0.372 score