On Fri, 13 Jan 2017, Bill Cole wrote:
On 10 Jan 2017, at 10:55, Michael B Allen wrote:
bayes_file_mode 0777
Don't do that. Ever. It is not necessary, despite having been propagated
widely as a supposed solution for system-wide Bayes permission issues. The
clear indicator that whoever devis
On 10 Jan 2017, at 10:55, Michael B Allen wrote:
bayes_file_mode 0777
Don't do that. Ever. It is not necessary, despite having been propagated
widely as a supposed solution for system-wide Bayes permission issues.
The clear indicator that whoever devised that was flailing in sheer
ignorance
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
>
>
> On 10-01-17 07:07, Michael B Allen wrote:
>> If I understand correctly, the BAYES_X tags add a value corresponding
>> to the X value. So BAYES_99 is basically adding 0.99 to the spam
>> score?
>
> This is incorrect. The number in the tag o
On 10-01-17 07:07, Michael B Allen wrote:
> If I understand correctly, the BAYES_X tags add a value corresponding
> to the X value. So BAYES_99 is basically adding 0.99 to the spam
> score?
This is incorrect. The number in the tag only corresponds with the
result of the bayesian classification.
If I understand correctly, the BAYES_X tags add a value corresponding
to the X value. So BAYES_99 is basically adding 0.99 to the spam
score?
Ideally I feel it should be possible to scale this value such as by
using simple multiplication or even exponentially.
Is it possible to increase the score
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Cathryn Mataga wrote:
On 10/24/2012 8:35 AM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
24.10.2012 18:19, Ned Slider kirjoitti:
> I have had very good success running adjusted scores for BAYES rules,
> but I am very careful how I train my bayes database. I've disabled
> auto-learning and
On 10/24/2012 8:35 AM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
24.10.2012 18:19, Ned Slider kirjoitti:
I have had very good success running adjusted scores for BAYES rules,
but I am very careful how I train my bayes database. I've disabled
auto-learning and only manually train on hand-checked ham and spam
examp
24.10.2012 18:19, Ned Slider kirjoitti:
> I have had very good success running adjusted scores for BAYES rules,
> but I am very careful how I train my bayes database. I've disabled
> auto-learning and only manually train on hand-checked ham and spam
> examples. Consequently, I find the extremes (BA
On 22/10/12 19:15, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 10/22, JP Kelly wrote:
Should I set the BAYES_99 score high enough to trigger as spam?
I get plenty of spam getting through which does not get caught because BAYES_99
is the only rule which fires and it is not set to score at or above the
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 10/23, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
22.10.2012 21:15, dar...@chaosreigns.com kirjoitti:
Huh, ruleqa doesn't track hits to BAYES_99?
If it did, against which database it would do that?
It would show the hit rates in the corpora of the masschec
On 10/23, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> 22.10.2012 21:15, dar...@chaosreigns.com kirjoitti:
> > Huh, ruleqa doesn't track hits to BAYES_99?
> If it did, against which database it would do that?
It would show the hit rates in the corpora of the masscheck submitters,
like everything else. So, the datab
22.10.2012 21:15, dar...@chaosreigns.com kirjoitti:
> Huh, ruleqa doesn't track hits to BAYES_99?
If it did, against which database it would do that?
Just askin...
--
"I'm out of options for now. It is something that has gone wrong "in the
apt-get region" (can't find a good expression for that
On 10/22, JP Kelly wrote:
> Should I set the BAYES_99 score high enough to trigger as spam?
> I get plenty of spam getting through which does not get caught because
> BAYES_99 is the only rule which fires and it is not set to score at or above
> the threshold.
You could. Some peo
Should I set the BAYES_99 score high enough to trigger as spam?
I get plenty of spam getting through which does not get caught because BAYES_99
is the only rule which fires and it is not set to score at or above the
threshold.
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, MySQL Student wrote:
meta LOCAL_BAYES_RTF(BAYES_99 && LOCAL_CTYP_RTF)
score LOCAL_BAYES_RTF 1.5
describe LOCAL_BAYES_RTF Rule by AS: Probably an Inline RTF spam
If the only thing it's complaining about during lint is the zero sc
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, MySQL Student wrote:
meta LOCAL_BAYES_RTF(BAYES_99 && LOCAL_CTYP_RTF)
score LOCAL_BAYES_RTF 1.5
describe LOCAL_BAYES_RTF Rule by AS: Probably an Inline RTF spam
mimeheader LOCAL_CTYP_RTFContent-Type =~
/^application\/octet-stream.\.rtf/i
score
>
>
> Post your entire scoring block for LOCAL_BAYES_RTF
meta LOCAL_BAYES_RTF(BAYES_99 && LOCAL_CTYP_RTF)
score LOCAL_BAYES_RTF 1.5
describe LOCAL_BAYES_RTF Rule by AS: Probably an Inline RTF spam
mimeheader LOCAL_CTYP_RTFContent-Type =~
/^application\/octet-stream.\
On 22 Jun, 2009, at 12:50 , MySQL Student wrote:
Ideas greatly appreciated.
Post your entire scoring block for LOCAL_BAYES_RTF
--
Updated to be PRCE compatible after 400 years: /(bb|[^b]{2})/
The debug output is saying that the meta rule, LOCAL_BAYES_RTF, has a
dependency, BAYES_99, which has a 0 score.
In the score line, there are two zero values. ;) It depends what
scoreset you're running in.
Also, just because 50_scores.cf has something set doesn't mean
something later on doesn't c
Hi all,
When I run "spamassassin -D --lint", I receive this output:
[14406] info: rules: meta test LOCAL_BAYES_RTF has dependency 'BAYES_99'
with a zero score
Which is it saying has a zero score?
BAYES_99 in 50_scores.cf is shown as:
score BAYES_99 0 0 3.5 3.5
The LOCAL_BAYES_RTF is a meta ru
20 matches
Mail list logo
