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
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
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
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
>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,
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
> 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
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
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_$) scoring the same.
A 20-40% confidence level is not high enough to have a significant
positive score nor is it lo
Hello Bowie,
Wednesday, May 8, 2013, 4:35:35 PM, you wrote:
BB> makes a bit more sense.
Not a lot, though to have BAYES_20 and BAYES_$) scoring the same.
--
Best regards,
Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk
pgpqBdg1MLCZD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Incidentally, the FAQ answer for "HowScoresAreAssigned" on the SA wiki
is out of date.
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
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.
{^_^}
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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-
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).
>
>
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
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
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_
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
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
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
> > 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
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
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
44 matches
Mail list logo