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 for distri-
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 "default Bayes d
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 help.
Why
27 matches
Mail list logo
