Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

e of days ago, removing all the headers. It may lower points to some spam but probably it's better.. On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 3:37 PM joe a wrote: > On 2/17/2023 10:41 PM, Loren Wilton wrote: > >> They receive wildly different BAYES scores. > >> * -1.9 BAYES_00

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 10:41 PM, Loren Wilton wrote: They receive wildly different BAYES scores. * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% *  [score: 0.0002] *  2.2 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% *  [score: 0.0881] This looks like you have per-user Bayes

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 8:24 PM, joe a wrote: Did a simple test today sending an email from a gmail account to two email accounts on my system.   The only difference was the email address, both were on the same "To:" line in the composed messages. They receive wildly different BAYES scores. as was ment

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 8:24 PM, joe a wrote: On 2/17/2023 3:25 PM, joe a wrote: Did a simple test today sending an email from a gmail account to two email accounts on my system.   The only difference was the email address, both were on the same "To:" line in the composed messages. They receive wildly

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2023-02-17 at 22:41:05 UTC-0500 (Fri, 17 Feb 2023 19:41:05 -0800) Loren Wilton is rumored to have said: They receive wildly different BAYES scores. * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0002] * 2.2 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

They receive wildly different BAYES scores. * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0002] * 2.2 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% * [score: 0.0881] This looks like you have per-user Bayes databases, and the messaage type has been trained

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

YES scores. -- X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5 (2021-03-20) on myserver X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=4.9 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, IXHASH_X1,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 11:44 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 10:54 -0500, joe a wrote: Could it have been that simple? If, like myself, you find reference books useful, you may want to get a copy of "Linux in a Nutshell" - an O'Reilly book. It tends to assume you know at least one oth

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 10:54 -0500, joe a wrote: Could it have been that simple? On 17.02.23 16:44, Martin Gregorie wrote: If, like myself, you find reference books useful, you may want to get a copy of "Linux in a Nutshell" - an O'Reilly book. It tends to assume you know at least one other OS

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 10:54 -0500, joe a wrote: > Could it have been that simple? > If, like myself, you find reference books useful, you may want to get a copy of "Linux in a Nutshell" - an O'Reilly book. It tends to assume you know at least one other OS fairly well, is well organised and conci

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 4:42 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 16.02.23 15:57, joe a wrote: Re-energized having recently heroically wrestled an elusive issue (to me) into surrender . . . we now turn to another issue. Probably I need to retrain BAYES "From scratch".  I have a mess (years?) of stored s

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 7:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 16.02.23 um 23:34 schrieb joe a: I have no idea what you refer to when you state "don't user proper packages".  "Proper" in what sense? A rhetorical question. i have no idea how you installed SA but rpm packages or debs usually have correct perm

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 23:32 +0100, hg user wrote: > root can do anything. a restricted user can't: it's only allowed to do > what > others allowed it. > > it also runs with another environment, so it may miss PATHes or @INC > directories. > You can check this by running  env | less from a comma

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 16.02.23 15:57, joe a wrote: Re-energized having recently heroically wrestled an elusive issue (to me) into surrender . . . we now turn to another issue. Probably I need to retrain BAYES "From scratch". I have a mess (years?) of stored sample emails that and be relearned. I understand th

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/16/2023 9:13 PM, joe a wrote: Well, I am in unfamiliar waters. picking one error message as typical: plugin: failed to parse plugin (from @INC): Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/iXhash2.pm: lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/iXhash2.pm: Permission denied at (eval 1746) line 1. The fil

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/16/2023 8:28 PM, Matija Nalis wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 05:34:37PM -0500, joe a wrote: Oh, of course. I installed as root initially, being foolish perhaps, but did create a specific user "later" and adjusted permissions as needed. Or, so I thought. well, installing as root (especi

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 05:34:37PM -0500, joe a wrote: > Oh, of course. I installed as root initially, being foolish perhaps, but > did create a specific user "later" and adjusted permissions as needed. Or, > so I thought. well, installing as root (especially with restrictive umask) manually (

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

. . . it also runs with another environment, so it may miss PATHes or @INC directories. That throws me a curve.  What is an @INC directory?  SA specific? I do not find any with the locate command, but if the are an actual directory may need to escape the @ sign somehow.  \ does not seem to do

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/16/2023 5:32 PM, hg user wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 9:57 PM joe a > wrote: plugin: failed to parse plugin (from @INC): Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: Permission denied at (eval

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

. . . I have no idea what you refer to when you state "don't user proper packages".  "Proper" in what sense? A rhetorical question. i have no idea how you installed SA but rpm packages or debs usually have correct permissions Oh, of course. I installed as root initially, being foolish per

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 9:57 PM joe a wrote: > > plugin: failed to parse plugin (from @INC): Can't locate > Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: > lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: Permission denied at (eval 44) > line 1. > root can do anything. a restricted user can't: it's only allowed

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/16/2023 4:30 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 16.02.23 um 21:57 schrieb joe a: I understand that sa-learn should be run as the same user as spamd, however I find it has always been run as root and when running as the spamassassin user results in errors, such as: ~su -c "sa-learn --spam /var

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/14/2023 6:09 PM, joe a wrote: Please let this sit for a while, I've discovered a fundamental issue with my scheme of feeding messages to BAYES.  Unfortunately I was remiss, apparently, it setting up logging for some bits, so have no idea how long this has been failing. Sorry for the clut

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

BAYES_00, -1.9. I run the bayes debug and found that clearly spam words were not recognized as spammy. Then I discovered that one admin enable auto-learning by mistake and the database was full of garbage... I cleared the db, reloaded it with our hand-selected corpus and the message was now BAYES_50

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

However, many of tokens in even Forbes and WP newsletters may occure in different spamy newsletters, so be careful when traning even these. On 15.02.23 09:51, Alex wrote: This is exactly what I was thinking. When going through the quarantine, it's also very difficult to always not only identify

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

Hi, > > However, many of tokens in even Forbes and WP newsletters may occure in > different spamy newsletters, so be careful when traning even these. > This is exactly what I was thinking. When going through the quarantine, it's also very difficult to always not only identify which newsletters ma

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

t, but one should be careful about that. If you want you can use bayes_ignore_header to ignore some headers. this rarely helps. On 2/15/23, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% >* [score: 0.] This indicates a mistrained database, w

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

WP or Forbes, their emails will be flagged. It's normal. If you want you can use bayes_ignore_header to ignore some headers. On 2/15/23, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >>>*-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% >>> >* [score: 0.] >>>

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

*-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% >* [score: 0.] This indicates a mistrained database, which means you have trained too many spams or spam-like messages (commercial messages) as ham. Proper training of spams should help. Just keep your spam (and optionally

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 13.02.23 17:42, joe a wrote: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES.  Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% *  [score: 0.] On 2/14/2023 2:56 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

Hi, >*-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% > >* [score: 0.] > > This indicates a mistrained database, which means you have trained too > many > spams or spam-like messages (commercial messages) as ham. > > Proper training of spams should hel

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

37 PM, joe a wrote: On 2/14/2023 2:56 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 13.02.23 17:42, joe a wrote: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES.  Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/14/2023 2:56 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 13.02.23 17:42, joe a wrote: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES.  Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% *  [score

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 13.02.23 17:42, joe a wrote: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES. Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.] This indicates a mistrained database, which

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES. Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.] The score is reasonable for guaranteed ham, which is what your Bayes thinks this

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

joe a skrev den 2023-02-14 00:12: On 2/13/2023 5:51 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: joe a skrev den 2023-02-13 23:42: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES.  Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/13/2023 5:51 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: joe a skrev den 2023-02-13 23:42: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on . . . time to upgrade imho :=) . . . And, yes, I should upgrade.

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/13/2023 5:51 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: joe a skrev den 2023-02-13 23:42: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES.  Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% *  [score: 0.

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

joe a skrev den 2023-02-13 23:42: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES. Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.] SpamAssassin 3.4.5 time to upgrade imho

BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES. Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.] SpamAssassin 3.4.5 Thanks for any pointers.

Re: BAYES_00 Query

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014, Axb wrote: On 04/27/2014 06:02 PM, John Hardin wrote: Then wipe and retrain again. I'd definitely go for that oldest spam in bayes is from Thu, 01 Sep 2011 23:29:40 GMT 0.000 0 1314919780 0 non-token data: oldest atime The DB just hasn't enough spam

Re: BAYES_00 Query

On 04/27/2014 06:02 PM, John Hardin wrote: Then wipe and retrain again. I'd definitely go for that oldest spam in bayes is from Thu, 01 Sep 2011 23:29:40 GMT 0.000 0 1314919780 0 non-token data: oldest atime The DB just hasn't enough spam to make a difference.

Re: BAYES_00 Query

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014, Brian Eliassen wrote: Yes, I had that much spam stored up. Good. I cannot figure out why BAYES_00 would hit on these. First, do you have autolearn enabled? If so, I would turn it off until the basic initial Bayes training is proven. Second, if spams are hitting

Re: BAYES_00 Query

Check bayes settings, did you train as same user as mimedefang runs as if not using sql bayes backend, is your setup global bayes or pr user setup? -- Sendt fra min Android telefon med K-9 Mail. Undskyld hvis jeg er lidt kortfattet.

BAYES_00 Query

t I've seen over the past two days: 3.299 (***) BAYES_00,FORGED_RELAY_MUA_TO_MX 3.92 (***) BAYES_00 ,FREEMAIL_FROM ,RDNS_NONE,TBIRD_SUSP_MIME_BDRY,T_HTML_ATTACH,T_OBFU_HTML_ATTACH -1 () BAYES_00 0.279 () BAD_CREDIT,BAYES_00 -0.988 () BAYES_00,HTML_EXTRA_CLOSE,HTML_MESSAGE,T_REMOTE_IMAGE

Re: Test email hitting BAYES_00

network. This summarizes the "rewriting" you just did, in hopes for SA to magically stop hitting low Bayes rules. You're barking up the wrong tree -- you should outright ignore the Bayes score, when you actually are testing your own rules. Granted, short- circuiting on BAYES_00 got in th

Re: Test email hitting BAYES_00

On 2013-07-24 15:59, RW wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:15:01 +0200 > Simon Loewenthal wrote: > >> I rewrote this (not GTUBE anymore) and had the same bayes score >> http://pastebin.com/ATqch32Y [1] [3] > > It's not particularly surprising it hits BAYES

Re: Test email hitting BAYES_00

On 24.07.13 13:00, Simon Loewenthal wrote: Yesterday, this did not hit BAYES at all, and now this hits BAYES_00, and I did not use autolearn. I did a sa-learn --forget for good measure and this changed nothing (*see below). I am a little flummoxed. Do any of you have any ideas? _# sa-learn

Re: Test email hitting BAYES_00

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:15:01 +0200 Simon Loewenthal wrote: > I rewrote this (not GTUBE anymore) and had the same bayes score > http://pastebin.com/ATqch32Y [3] It's not particularly surprising it hits BAYES_00, aside from the obfuscated words it's not very spammy. What you ori

Re: Test email hitting BAYES_00

On 2013-07-24 14:41, RW wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:04:36 +0200 > JK4 wrote: > >> On 2013-07-24 13:31, RW wrote: > This isn't a GTUBE email, it's an email with lots of innocuous text and the > obfuscated name of a drug claiming to be a GTUBE email. > http://spamassassin.apache.org/gtube

Re: Test email hitting BAYES_00

JK4 skrev den 2013-07-24 14:40: #shortcircuit BAYES_00 ham or change it to on, not adding ham score here I ran my message through spamc []see pastebin below), but this still won't explain why this hits bayes 00 :( the error is to not add -100 on shortcircuit, it is just save circles

Re: Test email hitting BAYES_00

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:04:36 +0200 JK4 wrote: > > > On 2013-07-24 13:31, RW wrote: > > This isn't a GTUBE email, it's an email with lots of innocuous text > > and the obfuscated name of a drug claiming to be a GTUBE email. > > > > http://spamassassin.apache.org/gtube/ [2] > > > > If it was

Re: Test email hitting BAYES_00

le > [score: 0.0008] > -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% > > do you have shortcircuit on bayes_00 ? > > solution set score on shortcircuit to score -0.001 > > playing fair to autolearn Commented out the shirtcircuit #shortcircuit BAYES_00 ham I ran

Re: Test email hitting BAYES_00

JK4 skrev den 2013-07-24 14:04: This is a GTUBE test email I'm using to test if rules I wrote fired. I just don't know why this started hitting bayes zero all of a sudden. This shortcircuits because the server is configured to do so, and I could turn this off. what is learned so ?

Re: Test email hitting BAYES_00

Simon Loewenthal skrev den 2013-07-24 13:00: Little email and result of spamc can be found here http://pastebin.com/5N0xhWms [1] -100 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run, due to a shortcircuited rule [score: 0.0008] -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY

Re: Test email hitting BAYES_00

On 2013-07-24 13:31, RW wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:00:59 +0200 > Simon Loewenthal wrote: > >> Hi, Yesterday, this did not hit BAYES at all, and now this hits BAYES_00, >> and I did not use autolearn. I did a sa-learn --forget for good measure and >> this

Re: Test email hitting BAYES_00

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:00:59 +0200 Simon Loewenthal wrote: > > > Hi, > > Yesterday, this did not hit BAYES at all, and now this hits BAYES_00, > and I did not use autolearn. I did a sa-learn --forget for good > measure and this changed nothing (*see below). I am a littl

Test email hitting BAYES_00

Hi, Yesterday, this did not hit BAYES at all, and now this hits BAYES_00, and I did not use autolearn. I did a sa-learn --forget for good measure and this changed nothing (*see below). I am a little flummoxed. Do any of you have any ideas? Little email and result of spamc can be found here

Re: BAYES_00

clude a previous spam corpus so > I used that to sa-learn. > > All my messages hit BAYES_00. > > I don't have many "fresh" spams. I do not run a SMTP server, I simply > collect mail for my family and myself from my ISP and other sources > using fetchmail. My I

Re: BAYES_00

On Sat, 6 Oct 2012, Arthur Dent wrote: On Sat, 2012-10-06 at 12:36 -0700, John Hardin wrote: Well, you're probably going to have to re-train from scratch. A... That's not a big deal if you've kept your corpora... Review every message in your training corpora to ensure they are proper

Re: BAYES_00

include a previous spam corpus so I used that to sa-learn. All my messages hit BAYES_00. I don't have many "fresh" spams. I do not run a SMTP server, I simply collect mail for my family and myself from my ISP and other sources using fetchmail. My ISP seem to fil

Re: BAYES_00

On 10/06/2012 10:41 PM, Arthur Dent wrote: >Zap your Bayes database, re-train and see how it goes. I only have about 20 "fresh" spams in those two folders. Will bayes be deactivated until I get back to 200 spams? If you want to override the default 200 spam / 200 ham: add to local.cf # use w

Re: BAYES_00

a (very > > old) backup which happened to include a previous spam corpus so I used > > that to sa-learn. > > > > All my messages hit BAYES_00. > > Well, you're probably going to have to re-train from scratch. A... > Review every message in your training

Re: BAYES_00

my messages hit BAYES_00. Well, you're probably going to have to re-train from scratch. Review every message in your training corpora to ensure they are properly classified. Add a bunch of new ham and, if you have any, new spam. Very old spam (say, >5 years) may not be too use

BAYES_00

Hello all, Following a hard drive crash I am rebuilding my small home server on a Fedora17 platform. One of the casualties of the HD crash was my spam corpus. I had a (very old) backup which happened to include a previous spam corpus so I used that to sa-learn. All my messages hit BAYES_00. I

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 8/22/2012 10:26 AM, Axb wrote: > On 08/22/2012 04:10 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: >> >> I did end-up overriding the bayes_path, which provided a workaround for >> the permissions issues. Cheers to the suggestion. > > This is not a workaround, it's common practice in many types of setups > and docum

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 08/22/2012 04:10 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: I did end-up overriding the bayes_path, which provided a workaround for the permissions issues. Cheers to the suggestion. This is not a workaround, it's common practice in many types of setups and documented, but due to numerous reasons can't be set

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 8/22/2012 9:43 AM, John Hardin wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Bowie Bailey wrote: > >> On 8/21/2012 5:51 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: >>> >>> What good is the --username switch, then? Thanks for the follow-up, John! > See other responses. > >>> Why does this command train the "root" user's data

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 8/22/2012 9:05 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > On 8/21/2012 5:51 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: >> >> On 8/21/2012 5:19 PM, John Hardin wrote: >>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: >>> Aug 21 13:08:33.729 [23714] dbg: bayes: tie-ing to DB file R/O /var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin/bayes_toks >>>

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Bowie Bailey wrote: On 8/21/2012 5:51 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: What good is the --username switch, then? See other responses. Why does this command train the "root" user's database? Because you ran the command as root. I apologize, I didn't provide sufficient detail

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 8/21/2012 5:51 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: On 8/21/2012 5:19 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: Aug 21 13:08:33.729 [23714] dbg: bayes: tie-ing to DB file R/O /var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin/bayes_toks ---8<-- # sa-learn --username=amavis --dump magic Run tha

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 08/21/2012 11:51 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: On 8/21/2012 5:19 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: Aug 21 13:08:33.729 [23714] dbg: bayes: tie-ing to DB file R/O /var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin/bayes_toks ---8<-- # sa-learn --username=amavis --dump magic Run

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 08/21/2012 11:51 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: On 8/21/2012 5:19 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: Aug 21 13:08:33.729 [23714] dbg: bayes: tie-ing to DB file R/O /var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin/bayes_toks ---8<-- # sa-learn --username=amavis --dump magic Run

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 8/21/2012 5:19 PM, John Hardin wrote: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: > >> Aug 21 13:08:33.729 [23714] dbg: bayes: tie-ing to DB file R/O >> /var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin/bayes_toks >> >> ---8<-- >> # sa-learn --username=amavis --dump magic > > Run that with --debug and ver

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 2012-08-15 20:56, Ben Johnson wrote: On 8/15/2012 2:24 PM, John Hardin wrote: You may also want to set up some mechanism for users to submit misclassified messages for training. That sounds like a good idea. [...] this server runs Ubuntu 10.04 with Dovecot Since you're using Dovecot you

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 08/21/2012 11:19 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: Aug 21 13:08:33.729 [23714] dbg: bayes: tie-ing to DB file R/O /var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin/bayes_toks ---8<-- # sa-learn --username=amavis --dump magic Run that with --debug and verify that the filen

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: Aug 21 13:08:33.729 [23714] dbg: bayes: tie-ing to DB file R/O /var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin/bayes_toks ---8<-- # sa-learn --username=amavis --dump magic Run that with --debug and verify that the filenames match. -- John Hardin KA7OHZ

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 8/20/2012 2:47 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: > I was able to resolve the issue by adding the --username switch to the > 'sa-learn' executable: > > # sa-learn --username=amavis --spam > /var/vmail/example.com/trainer/Maildir/.INBOX.Spam/cur > > Thanks for all of the hints, folks! So, I've been traini

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 08/20/2012 08:02 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: Furthermore, ISPconfig handles the creation (and deletion) of these directories, so I hesitate to change anything manually and muck-up the installation. While there may be permissions mask that is applied, modifying it seems risky. IDEA: I have a lit

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 8/20/2012 2:02 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: > > > On 8/20/2012 12:56 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: >> On 8/20/2012 12:46 PM, Axb wrote: >>> On 08/20/2012 06:42 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: On 8/17/2012 11:28 AM, John Hardin wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: > >> On 8/16/20

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 8/20/2012 12:56 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > On 8/20/2012 12:46 PM, Axb wrote: >> On 08/20/2012 06:42 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: >>> >>> On 8/17/2012 11:28 AM, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: > On 8/16/2012 2:00 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: > Basically, I need t

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 8/20/2012 12:46 PM, Axb wrote: On 08/20/2012 06:42 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: On 8/17/2012 11:28 AM, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: On 8/16/2012 2:00 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: Basically, I need to do something about the spam inundation, as soon as possible. Is there

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 08/20/2012 06:42 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: On 8/17/2012 11:28 AM, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: On 8/16/2012 2:00 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: Basically, I need to do something about the spam inundation, as soon as possible. Is there any reason that I should NOT be pe

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 8/17/2012 11:28 AM, John Hardin wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: > >> On 8/16/2012 2:00 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: >> Basically, I need to do something about the spam inundation, as soon as >> possible. >> >> Is there any reason that I should NOT be performing the sa-learn >> trai

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Bowie Bailey wrote: On 8/17/2012 10:56 AM, Ben Johnson wrote: Basically, I need to do something about the spam inundation, as soon as possible. The quickest way I know of to reduce spam is to reject mail at the MTA based on the zen.spamhaus.org blacklist. I have been

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 8/17/2012 11:28 AM, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: Would doing so preclude me from creating training folders for individual IMAP users in the future? They're not related. Per-user ham and spam training folders doesn't preclude using those messages for training a

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: On 8/16/2012 2:00 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: Basically, I need to do something about the spam inundation, as soon as possible. Is there any reason that I should NOT be performing the sa-learn training under the "amavis" user account? In general, all trainin

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 8/17/2012 10:56 AM, Ben Johnson wrote: On 8/16/2012 2:00 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: In any event, at this point, I'm confused as to which user account I should be using when executing "sa-learn --spam", for example. As a bit of background, I'm using ISPConfig 3, which implements virtual mailbox

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 8/16/2012 2:00 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: > In any event, at this point, I'm confused as to which user account I > should be using when executing "sa-learn --spam", for example. > > As a bit of background, I'm using ISPConfig 3, which implements virtual > mailbox users via MySQL. > > I dug through

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, RW wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:18:44 -0400 Alex wrote: What effect do whitelist entries have on autolearning None at all because they are marked as "userconf". bummer. In other words, my whitelist_from_rcvd entries add -100 to the score, which would be way beyond t

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:18:44 -0400 Alex wrote: > Hi, > > >> What will probably end up happening is this: > >> (1) wipe your Bayes database > >> (2) turn off autolearn > >> (3) collect several hundred hams and spams for an initial training > >> corpus (4) train using that corpus > >> (5) evaluate

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: It may be academic at this point, but I'm now curious as to what causes the DB file to be recreated, if not restarting Amavis. (It bears mention that plenty of mail came in between using the "--clear" switch and when using the "--dump" switch began to prod

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

learn >>>> --clear", and restarting Amavis, I'm still seeing this: >>>> >>>> No, score=0.593 tag=-999 tag2=3 kill=13 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, >>>> HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, >>>> URIBL_DBL_SPAM=1.7] autol

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

3 kill=13 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_SPAM=1.7] autolearn=disabled Why BAYES_00 still? Am I running the wrong command to clear the database? That's correct. Be sure that you're running it as the same user that amavis+SA is run

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

Hi, >> What will probably end up happening is this: >> (1) wipe your Bayes database >> (2) turn off autolearn >> (3) collect several hundred hams and spams for an initial training corpus >> (4) train using that corpus >> (5) evaluate results >> >> Depending on your mail volume, once Bayes is worki

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On 8/16/2012 11:38 AM, John Hardin wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: > >> So, after disabling auto-learn (for now) and executing "sa-learn >> --clear", and restarting Amavis, I'm still seeing this: >> >> No, score=0.593

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Ben Johnson wrote: So, after disabling auto-learn (for now) and executing "sa-learn --clear", and restarting Amavis, I'm still seeing this: No, score=0.593 tag=-999 tag2=3 kill=13 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001,

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

gt;>>> Some 99% of the spam that I receive, which is grossly spammy (we're >>>>> talking auto loans, cash advances, dink pills, the whole lot) contains >>>>> "BAYES_00=-1.9" in the tests portion of the X-Spam-Status header. >>>>> &

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

re >>>> talking auto loans, cash advances, dink pills, the whole lot) contains >>>> "BAYES_00=-1.9" in the tests portion of the X-Spam-Status header. >>>> >>>> Might anyone know why? >>> >>> Poor training. >> >&

Re: Very spammy messages yield BAYES_00 (-1.9)

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 8/15/2012 5:18 PM, John Hardin wrote: I might not go so far as to say autolearn should be disabled by default, as it is a major good if well trained; but setting the defaults extreme enough that it is reliably, if slowly, initially trained seem

  1   2   >