> McDonald, Dan wrote:
>> grep -E score\ RCVD.+-
>> /var/lib/spamassassin/updates_spamassassin_org/50_scores.cf | cut -d\
>> -f1-3 > /etc/mail/spamassassin/no-whitelists.cf
Nice. Now I just need to decide if I wait for ports to update or just manually
install 3.3
--
You try to shape the world
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 09:18 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
>> McDonald, Dan wrote:
>>
>>> Please excuse the top-post. This truly brain-damaged mua does not
>>> allow me to edit the body.
>>>
>>> Easiest way to disable whitelists is:
>>>
>>> grep -E score\ RCVD.+-
>>
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 09:18 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> McDonald, Dan wrote:
> >
> > Please excuse the top-post. This truly brain-damaged mua does not
> > allow me to edit the body.
> >
> > Easiest way to disable whitelists is:
> >
> > grep -E score\ RCVD.+-
> > /var/lib/spamassassin/updates_spama
McDonald, Dan wrote:
>
> Please excuse the top-post. This truly brain-damaged mua does not
> allow me to edit the body.
>
> Easiest way to disable whitelists is:
>
> grep -E score\ RCVD.+-
> /var/lib/spamassassin/updates_spamassassin_org/50_scores.cf | cut -d\
> -f1-3 > /etc/mail/spamassassin/no-w
Please excuse the top-post. This truly brain-damaged mua does not allow me to
edit the body.
Easiest way to disable whitelists is:
grep -E score\ RCVD.+-
/var/lib/spamassassin/updates_spamassassin_org/50_scores.cf | cut -d\ -f1-3 >
/etc/mail/spamassassin/no-whitelists.cf
Sent with Good (
> Warren Togami wrote:
>> While whitelists are not directly effective (statistically, when
>> averaged across a large corpus), whitelists are powerful tools in
>> indirect ways including:
>>
>> * Pushing the score beyond the auto-learn threshold for things like
>> Bayes to function without ma
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
The downside is that this is not "confirmed ham" and "confirmed spam".
(nod) Exactly. And that is what is needed to do a masscheck...
I wonder how much companies would pay for a part time SpamAssassin
honcho who can be trusted (bonded?) and can write SARE-ish
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
I'm just a touch naive here; but, it seems to me it should be possible,
somehow, to build running spamd daemons, one with the regular rules
and one with the mass check rules.
There's nothing special about "masscheck rules". Masscheck is just running
the curren
From: "Charles Gregory"
Sent: Sunday, 2009/December/20 06:20
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
More unfortunately, privacy concerns prevent me from building a useful
corpus of ham. Sigh
But otherwise such a good idea
Can you not trust yourself to use your own ham? You d
On 12/20/2009 09:20 AM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
More unfortunately, privacy concerns prevent me from building a useful
corpus of ham. Sigh
But otherwise such a good idea
Can you not trust yourself to use your own ham? You don't need to
provi
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
More unfortunately, privacy concerns prevent me from building a useful
corpus of ham. Sigh
But otherwise such a good idea
Can you not trust yourself to use your own ham? You don't need to
provide us with your mail. You can scan your own ma
On 19/12/2009 5:51 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
>> Why wait, when you do relatively simple things to help make it happen?
>> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
>> We can more frequently update rules if more people participate in the
>> nig
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
Why wait, when you do relatively simple things to help make it happen?
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
We can more frequently update rules if more people participate in the
nightly masschecks. The current documentation is a bit of a
On 18/12/2009 5:13 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
> On 12/18/2009 04:56 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
>>> We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated -
>>> i.e., if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated
>>> masschecks, it would
On 12/18/2009 04:56 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated -
i.e., if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated
masschecks, it would be automatically scored and published via sa-update.
Mu
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
Perhaps you meant CHAIR and keyboard? ;)
I should have guessed you've managed to short circuit the path
through your brain.
{O,o} <-- Grinning, ducking, and running REAL fast that way>
(Thanks for the straight line. {^_-})
(Thinks twice about it)
Ou
From: "Charles Gregory"
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 13:49
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
Still no changes through the sa-update channel.
Is there a time delay in the masscheck results being applied?
Yes, there is, Mr. Gregory. It exists between your m
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated - i.e.,
if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated masschecks,
it would be automatically scored and published via sa-update.
Music to my ears. I will wait (semi-)patiently. T
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
Still no changes through the sa-update channel.
Is there a time delay in the masscheck results being applied?
Yes, there is, Mr. Gregory. It exists between your monitor and your
keyboard.
There is a one inch gap between those
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
I recognize, from the existence of such sites as 'rules du jour' that it
has long been a practice for SA to release 'core' rule updates very
infrequently. But with respect, I question whether that is still a good
practice, particularly when an 'issue
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, LuKreme wrote:
It's already been stayed no changes to 3.2.5 will be made until 3.3 is
done, hasn't it?
Well, at this point, I respectfully bow, and take a step back, so as not
to sound too demanding of our great volunteers (smile), but I believe
in another of my posts I p
From: "Charles Gregory"
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 06:56
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
It is a good thing this issue was raised. It led to appropriate mass
check runs. I expect that will lead to saner scoring within the SA
framework. If not and it bites me, THEN I'll raise the issue ag
On Dec 18, 2009, at 7:56, Charles Gregory wrote:
Still no changes through the sa-update channel.
Is there a time delay in the masscheck results being applied?
It's already been stayed no changes to 3.2.5 will be made until 3.3 is
done, hasn't it?
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
It is a good thing this issue was raised. It led to appropriate mass
check runs. I expect that will lead to saner scoring within the SA
framework. If not and it bites me, THEN I'll raise the issue again.
Does that
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
It is a good thing this issue was raised. It led to appropriate mass
check runs. I expect that will lead to saner scoring within the SA
framework. If not and it bites me, THEN I'll raise the issue again.
Does that seem fair?
50_scores.cf:score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_
From: "J.D. Falk"
Sent: Thursday, 2009/December/17 11:21
On Dec 16, 2009, at 8:35 AM, LuKreme wrote:
The fact is I *AM* their customer. The people writing them checks are not,
they're just their funders. Whitelist companies ha to convince admins to
use their list. The only way to do that is
On Dec 16, 2009, at 8:35 AM, LuKreme wrote:
> The fact is I *AM* their customer. The people writing them checks are not,
> they're just their funders. Whitelist companies ha to convince admins to use
> their list. The only way to do that is to have really really really high
> quality lists that
Very interesting data indeed -- and a testament to the accuracy of the
SpamAssassin rules weighting process.
On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
> While whitelists are not directly effective (statistically, when averaged
> across a large corpus), whitelists are powerful tools in i
On 12/17/2009 11:27 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
If whitelists are to be enabled by default, I believe their score should
be moved considerably more toward zero.
/Jason
I don't necessarily disagree with this desire, as now we know the
whitelists actually are making almost zero difference to spam
Thank you, Warren. That (finally) gives some real perspective to this
mess, and gets some of the 'real' questions answered.
- C
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
I made a discovery today that surprised even myself. Using the rescore
masscheck and weekly masscheck logs while working
Warren Togami wrote:
While whitelists are not directly effective (statistically, when
averaged across a large corpus), whitelists are powerful tools in
indirect ways including:
* Pushing the score beyond the auto-learn threshold for things like
Bayes to function without manual intervention
Warren Togami wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6247#c49
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6247#c51
> It turns out that the ReturnPath and DNSWL whitelists have a
> statistically insignificant impact on spamassassin's ability to
> determine ham
On 16-Dec-2009, at 08:03, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Res wrote:
>>
>> no whitelist should ever become default part of SA
>>
>> the day it is, is the day I look elsewhere.
>
> Why shouldn't white lists become part of SA? Blacklists are part of SA. My
> hostkarma whitelists are one of the things that k
On Fri, 29 May 2009, ANTICOM-STINGER wrote:
The Barracuda white list is an 'exclusive' club and I suspect money has
This applies to any whitelists, and I never use them, I think, I and my
staff are the *only* ones in a position to decide who to whitelist, and I
think most ISP/ASP's are of th
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 12:16 -0600, J.D. Falk wrote:
> Rob McEwen wrote:
>
> > Additionally, I'd like to ask, other than being a superb cash-generating
> > machine, what good is a whitelist built upon pay-to-enter and NOT based
> > on editorial decisions made by non-biased e-mail administrators?
>
Hello Jack,
Tuesday, August 9, 2005, 6:15:22 AM, you wrote:
JG> I am trying to pass CNN "breaking news" alerts through the filters. My
JG> user_prefs contains:
JG> whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JG> and even
JG> whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JG> The problem is that they are sendi
ED]
> Sent: 09 August 2005 14:24
> To: Jack Gostl
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Whitelists
>
> Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I belive you can do
> it like so...
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> > Indulge me for a m
Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I belive you can do it like so...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Indulge me for a moment.
>
> It has been much too long since I thanked the developers of this program.
> You have no idea what a difference it has made in my life. I have an "old"
> address, one tha
Thomas Deaton wrote:
> Should local whitelists go into /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
> or /etc/MailScanner/rules/spam.whitelist.rules
> ?
> Is one more effective than the other?
They operate differently, and in general the MailScanner level whitelist
(spam.whitelist.rules) is better than using S
Given this more of a MailScanner related query it should really be on
the MailScanner users list.
But as I'm here...
It Depends.
If you use local.cf SA will run on messages to these users and may end
up with bayes learning this as ham when in fact its spam
If you put it in spam.whitelist.rules
40 matches
Mail list logo
