The nasty part is that you pretty much have to generate a per user
rule for this. I don't think a rule can expand things like $USER.
I have a rule for somebody at earthlink. I have a rule for me at
earthlink. I have a rule for several generic people at earthlink.
If it is to me and has fewer than
On 9/16/05, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are better off to use a normal SpamAssassin meta rule.
How so? SA doesn't know how to interpret "not to me" (unless I write
a plugin) -- it has no built-in knowledge of, for example, all
possible sendmail aliases for my personal account -- and ind
Hi,
On 9/16/05, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And of course, SARE rules are still needed. (Bob, I have a gem for you.
> It was Base64 encoded with four characters per line. I suspect it is a
> virus. It's .vbe labeled. No WAY I an going to run something from Cuba
> with a .vbe suffix on a Wind
You are better off to use a normal SpamAssassin meta rule.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 9/16/05, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes indeedy. And I've been looking at Bayes scores here just a wee bit.
BAYES_99 just does not hit on ham and hit
On 9/16/05, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes indeedy. And I've been looking at Bayes scores here just a wee bit.
> BAYES_99 just does not hit on ham and hits on high percentages of spam.
> Even BAYES_95 does not hit ham. I go down to BAYES_80 before I hit 0.05
> percent of ham.
During a two-w
Yes indeedy. And I've been looking at Bayes scores here just a wee bit.
BAYES_99 just does not hit on ham and hits on high percentages of spam.
Even BAYES_95 does not hit ham. I go down to BAYES_80 before I hit 0.05
percent of ham. I am toying with the idea of recognizing this feature and
tweaking
At 08:50 AM 9/16/2005, Pierre Thomson wrote:
I am continually amazed at the ability of the Bayesian engine to recognize
garbage. Those who think they can "poison" a Bayes DB with meaningless
text are deluded.
It's the Chi-squared combining rocks, actually.. But yes.. you're right,
bayes pois
I am continually amazed at the ability of the Bayesian engine to recognize
garbage. Those who think they can "poison" a Bayes DB with meaningless text
are deluded.
Here's a snip of spamassassin -t on one of today's spams, with nothing but a
URL, an inline gif and random words. (SA 2.64)
Cont
