On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:18:16 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> sorry it was not mean to be so, i just like to learn more about why
> bayes is better then other digest solotions already shared in
> spamassassin
Bayes tends to be a little bit harder to fool than digests. Although
fuzzy digests do the
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2013-05-13 15:14:
i think David missed one more word, no share ?
Perhaps but David was debating the usability of a shared database and
offered his input as a commercial vendor as well as access to his
concepts to the development team. I've always like MIMEDefang an
On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:28:16 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> i think David missed one more word, no share ?
OK, here's my point. In 2004, I was as skeptical as most others on this
list that a shared Bayes database would be useful. Then I read the USENIX
LISA '04 paper by Blosser and Josephsen th
On 5/11/2013 10:28 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Bob Proulx skrev den 2013-05-11 01:06:
No sale.
Your database sounds just simply wonderful. Where can I download this
database so that I can start using it?
i think David missed one more word, no share ?
Perhaps but David was debating the usabil
Axb skrev den 2013-05-11 16:21:
On 05/11/2013 04:14 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
south rules
south lines
?
do you mean bikini lines?
ritter sport
--
senders that put my email into body content will deliver it to my own
trashcan, so if you like to get reply, dont do it
Bob Proulx skrev den 2013-05-11 01:06:
No sale.
Your database sounds just simply wonderful. Where can I download
this
database so that I can start using it?
i think David missed one more word, no share ?
--
senders that put my email into body content will deliver it to my own
trashcan, so
David F. Skoll skrev den 2013-05-10 23:49:
No sale.
good or bad ? :)
--
senders that put my email into body content will deliver it to my own
trashcan, so if you like to get reply, dont do it
On 05/11/2013 04:14 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
south rules
south lines
?
do you mean bikini lines?
David F. Skoll skrev den 2013-05-10 21:51:
Anyway, my main point is this: Don't dismiss a shared Bayes database
without supplying evidence that it's a bad idea. :)
if its so good why not create south rules from it ? :)
i like to try it, if bayes_99 dump south lines rule set from this mail
--
On Fri, 10 May 2013 15:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> > Anyway, my main point is this: Don't dismiss a shared Bayes database
> > without supplying evidence that it's a bad idea. :)
> Care to share your database? :)
Ah... hmm. :)
I would be happy to share it with SA developers who might
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 17:49 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Right; pretend you're a salesperson trying to sell an anti-spam product.
> "Oh, you just have to go through your old mailbox and classify a few
> hundred messages by hand... then the system will work great!"
>
> No sale.
Most likely, and
David F. Skoll wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > And would you suggest distributing your well-averaged database to
> > people who install SpamAssassin to as to seed their Bayes?
>
> We have a distribution mechanism built into our software.
>
> > I think having users start with a blank slate and then
On Fri, 10 May 2013, David F. Skoll wrote:
Anyway, my main point is this: Don't dismiss a shared Bayes database
without supplying evidence that it's a bad idea. :)
Care to share your database? :)
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 17:58 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 23:14:36 +0200 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> We (probably) have a much larger sample population, so this tends not
> to be as much of a problem for us.
This thread is about a default Bayes database, suitable f
On Fri, 10 May 2013 23:14:36 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> I happened to be the lucky recipient of specific spam campaigns in
> languages I do not speak. Campaign referring to quite a few samples
> during a specific, relatively short time period. This definitely
> happened with French, Spani
On Fri, 10 May 2013 15:34:13 -0600
Bob Proulx wrote:
> The weasel words "agrees substantially" is telling. If it isn't 100%
> with no false positives then at least one of those messages does not
> agree. That would be the evidence requested.
> I am not saying that your technique isn't useful.
David F. Skoll wrote:
> Axb wrote:
> > - your HAM is somebody else's SPAM
>
> Do you have evidence for that? The reason I ask is that one of the
> main features of our (commercial) anti-spam solution is a very large
> Bayes database. Once a night, we aggregate all the tokens from votes from
> al
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 15:51 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:32:26 +0200 Axb wrote:
>
> > - your HAM is somebody else's SPAM
>
> Do you have evidence for that?
Evidence... examples, rather.
I happened to be the lucky recipient of specific spam campaigns in
languages I do n
On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:32:26 +0200
Axb wrote:
> - your HAM is somebody else's SPAM
Do you have evidence for that? The reason I ask is that one of the
main features of our (commercial) anti-spam solution is a very large
Bayes database. Once a night, we aggregate all the tokens from votes from
a
.
So here goes!!
Thanks for all your help.
> -Original Message-
> From: Karsten Bräckelmann [mailto:guent...@rudersport.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 8:18 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Default Bayes Database
>
> On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 14
Hi, why don't you collect a selection of spam and ham emails prior to
go live and use them to train the Bayes DB prior to go live. Then you
have a Bayes DB trained to your own data at time of go live...
thanks, Andy.
Quoting Andrew Talbot :
Well, I certainly hope someone offers to help!
I
As we've spoken about off-list, my boss is being very particular about
the
deployment of Bayes, and it sounds like one of his caveats is that we
don't
start from a blank database.
Starting from a blank database is quickest and safest.
If you start from someone else's database, your Bayes en
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 14:09 -0400, Andrew Talbot wrote:
> Well, I certainly hope someone offers to help!
Heh! I am really confident, Alex didn't mean to be rude, neither that he
actually hopes no one will help you. Quite the contrary...
He DID try to help you by explaining why a "
On 05/08/2013 08:15 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
Andrew Talbot wrote:
Well, I certainly hope someone offers to help!
If only to say "there is no default database."
There is no default database. :-)
As we've spoken about off-list, my boss is being very particular about the
deployment of Bayes, and
Andrew Talbot wrote:
> Well, I certainly hope someone offers to help!
>
> If only to say "there is no default database."
There is no default database. :-)
> As we've spoken about off-list, my boss is being very particular about the
> deployment of Bayes, and it sounds like one of his caveats
ing.
> -Original Message-
> From: Axb [mailto:axb.li...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 1:32 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Default Bayes Database
>
> On 05/08/2013 07:26 PM, Andrew Talbot wrote:
> > Hey all -
> >
>
On 05/08/2013 07:26 PM, Andrew Talbot wrote:
Hey all -
I remember seeing somewhere that there was a default Bayes database for
Bayes to start using right away, but can't seem to find that information
again on the Wiki or in my notes.
Can someone please help?
I hope nobody offers to
Hey all -
I remember seeing somewhere that there was a default Bayes database for
Bayes to start using right away, but can't seem to find that information
again on the Wiki or in my notes.
Can someone please help?
28 matches
Mail list logo
