I don't know if someone can help me on a question about message
components naming but if you can I think I know how to defeat this large
spam. Before a message gets opened there is I'll call it a tag like
make money fast you'll read and this is not on the Subject: line either
On 15 Jul 2015, at 16:12, Zinski, Steve wrote:
We're starting to see a lot of spam in the 800KB to 1.2MB size range.
I’m running MIMEdefang and it’s configured to skip messages larger
than 100KB (and I hesitate to increase the limit due to performance
issues). I read somewhere that there’s a w
On 2015-07-15 20:12 +, Zinski, Steve wrote:
> We're starting to see a lot of spam in the 800KB to 1.2MB size
> range. I’m running MIMEdefang and it’s configured to skip messages
> larger than 100KB (and I hesitate to increase the limit due to
> performance issues). I read somewhere that there’
On 7/15/2015 4:12 PM, Zinski, Steve wrote:
We're starting to see a lot of spam in the 800KB to 1.2MB size range. I’m
running MIMEdefang and it’s configured to skip messages larger than 100KB (and
I hesitate to increase the limit due to performance issues). I read somewhere
that there’s a way t
We're starting to see a lot of spam in the 800KB to 1.2MB size range. I’m
running MIMEdefang and it’s configured to skip messages larger than 100KB (and
I hesitate to increase the limit due to performance issues). I read somewhere
that there’s a way to have MIMEdefang (or spamassassin) strip out
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:52:34 -0400 (EDT),
Jude DaShiell wrote:
Jude> Since spamassassin cannot handle large spam over 2MB in size, what
Jude> can be used to handle that class of junk?
I use a script on the MX host to MIME reshape all large messages, dropping
all non-text attachments, an
On 9/4/2014 12:52 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote:
Since spamassassin cannot handle large spam over 2MB in size, what can
be used to handle that class of junk? Maybe some of you have got
messages from 3 Bureau Monitoring. I get those probably twice daily
and much as I dislike it, I will probably
Since spamassassin cannot handle large spam over 2MB in size, what can be
used to handle that class of junk? Maybe some of you have got messages
from 3 Bureau Monitoring. I get those probably twice daily and much as I
dislike it, I will probably terminate that other internet account when
On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 11:35 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > There are just a very few rules "scanning" non-textual parts of a mail.
> > Large-ish binary attachments don't have much of an impact on
> > performance. Large-ish textual attachments po
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Please do not hijack a thread. Please do not hit Reply, if you do not
intend to reply and contribute to that thread. Removing all quoted text
and changing the Subject does *not* make it a new thread or post.
(Hint: In-Reply-To and References headers
Please do not hijack a thread. Please do not hit Reply, if you do not
intend to reply and contribute to that thread. Removing all quoted text
and changing the Subject does *not* make it a new thread or post.
(Hint: In-Reply-To and References headers.)
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 09:50 -0400, Charles G
I got another 1MB spam today.
I still don't want to kill my system by attempting to scan every large
mail that comes in.
Has there been any progress on an 'option' to scan only text portions of
mail past a certain size limit and/or scan only the first X bytes? The
former is preferable becau
> 79.137.219.171
> 79.137.223.42
> 79.137.225.194
> 79.137.231.242
> 79.137.233.223
> 79.137.235.210
> 79.137.235.252
> 79.137.237.210
Slightly off subject,
This list of class Cs appears to be a HUGE block 79.137.170ish.0/24 -
79.137.240.0ish a russian spam gang. They appear to right now be u
her Mattox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 11:57 PM
> >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> >Subject: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio
> >
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >After years of stability, my bayes db is doing poorly. When I
0 non-token data: last expiry atime
>> 0.000 0 43200 0 non-token data: last expire atime
>> delta
>> 0.000 0 90881 0 non-token data: last expire
>> reduction count
>>
>> I've seen people report large spam/h
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 05:41:46AM +, Duane Hill wrote:
> Putting aside all updates, as I stated in a previous response. The default
> is actually set to -1.0 in $DEF_RULES_DIR/10_default_prefs.cf. Wouldn't
> that mean regardless of what the default was set to in the code, it would
> always
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:26:11AM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
It's not a documentation bug. The default is 0.1 in the code.
Please don't open a bug.
I'll admit I walked into this thread half way throught, but if one of
our updates intentionally c
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:26:11AM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> > It's not a documentation bug. The default is 0.1 in the code.
> > Please don't open a bug.
>
> I'll admit I walked into this thread half way throught, but if one of
> our updates intentionally changes the auto learn threshold, we
>
> Well, it had the opposite effect for me (I am assuming you mean lowering,
> not
> raising).
>
> Fletcher
No, I actually have increased bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam in the
positive direction
--
Abba Communications
Spokane, WA
www.abbacomm.net
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:18:13PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:02:16PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> > > as well as:
> > > 'perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AutoLearnThreshold'
> > > where they both have the nonspam default documented as 0.1.
> >
> > That looks
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:02:16PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
as well as:
'perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AutoLearnThreshold'
where they both have the nonspam default documented as 0.1.
That looks like a documentation bug. :-) It'd be great
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:02:16PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> > as well as:
> > 'perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AutoLearnThreshold'
> > where they both have the nonspam default documented as 0.1.
>
> That looks like a documentation bug. :-) It'd be great if somebody
> reported that to t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > And yes, I was *very* careful about the quality of the ham before
> > I learned it.
..
>
> So, what you are saying is that it was some really good burnt pig?
Yum!
> Just kidding... the default threshold value is higher.
Higher? You mean lower, right? bayes_auto_
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 01:53:52AM +, Duane Hill wrote:
> >No, I don't put it in local.cf. The most recent sa-update (3.002000)
> >changed it from 0.1 to -1.0. That update arrived here on May 11, which
> >is about the same time my problems began. Hmm.
> I stand corrected. I just looked in t
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Fletcher Mattox wrote:
Duane Hill writes:
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Fletcher Mattox wrote:
No, I have not changed the thresholds (-1 and 12, respectively).
The last time I checked, the default value for
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam was 0.1 and not -1. You must have tha
0 non-token data: last expiry atime
>> 0.000 0 43200 0 non-token data: last expire atime
>> delta
>> 0.000 0 90881 0 non-token data: last expire
>> reduction count
>>
>> I've seen people report large spam/h
Duane Hill writes:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007, Fletcher Mattox wrote:
>
> > No, I have not changed the thresholds (-1 and 12, respectively).
>
> The last time I checked, the default value for
> bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam was 0.1 and not -1. You must have that
> declared in your local.cf.
No
>
> Just to be clear, I took that dump before I learned the 500 hams.
> Here is a dump after I learned the hams. It looks normal to me.
>
> 0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
> 0.000 0 14787 0 non-token data: nspam
> 0.000 0
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Fletcher Mattox wrote:
No, I have not changed the thresholds (-1 and 12, respectively).
The last time I checked, the default value for
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam was 0.1 and not -1. You must have that
declared in your local.cf.
-Original Message-
>From: Fletcher Mattox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 11:57 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio
>
>
>Hi,
>
>After years of stability, my bayes db is doing poorly. When I f
79761284 0 non-token data: last expiry atime
>> 0.000 0 43200 0 non-token data: last expire atime
>> delta
>> 0.000 0 90881 0 non-token data: last expire
>> reduction count
>>
>> I've seen people repo
, 2007 11:57 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio
Hi,
After years of stability, my bayes db is doing poorly. When I first
noticed it, it was classifying lots of ham BAYES_99, I cleared the db
and started over. Now it finds *very* few ham.
0.000
n-token data: last expire atime
> delta
> 0.000 0 90881 0 non-token data: last expire reduction
> count
>
> I've seen people report large spam/ham ratios on this list, but this
> seems extreme, >170:1. So I added about 500 ham (I am sure of the
>
90881 0 non-token data: last expire reduction
count
I've seen people report large spam/ham ratios on this list, but this
seems extreme, >170:1. So I added about 500 ham (I am sure of the
quality) to the db with "sa-learn --ham", hoping that would help.
But it is still beh
reduction
count
I've seen people report large spam/ham ratios on this list, but this
seems extreme, >170:1. So I added about 500 ham (I am sure of the
quality) to the db with "sa-learn --ham", hoping that would help.
But it is still behaving poorly, over 20% of my ham is BAYES_99.
35 matches
Mail list logo
