Re: bayes problem?

Am 17.12.2015 um 12:18 schrieb Matthias Apitz: El día Thursday, December 17, 2015 a las 11:47:50AM +0100, Reindl Harald escribió: Am 17.12.2015 um 10:54 schrieb Matthias Apitz: Since some days (I think(!) after I run 'sa-update') a lot of technical mails are declared as SPAM due to BAYES_9

Re: bayes problem?

El día Thursday, December 17, 2015 a las 11:47:50AM +0100, Reindl Harald escribió: > > Am 17.12.2015 um 10:54 schrieb Matthias Apitz: > > Since some days (I think(!) after I run 'sa-update') a lot of technical > > mails are declared as SPAM due to BAYES_99 (99-100% SPAM), for example > > this ma

Re: bayes problem?

Am 17.12.2015 um 10:54 schrieb Matthias Apitz: Since some days (I think(!) after I run 'sa-update') a lot of technical mails are declared as SPAM due to BAYES_99 (99-100% SPAM), for example this mail I'm responding now; I saved it as 'rh.mail' and run it through: "sa-update" adjust scores, bri

Re: Bayes Problem

From: Julian Brown Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:46:55 -0500 I work for a company that has lots of mail users. We use Exim with Spamassassin. My job is to track down this problem. We are getting complaints of too much spam and have tracked it down, using Google, to our bay

Re: Bayes - Problem using SQLite: SOLVED

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 03:07:44 +, Walter Hurry wrote: > On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:22:49 +, Walter Hurry wrote: > >> I am experimenting with using SQLite for my Bayes db. >> >> However when I start spamd, it reports the following in >> /var/log/maillog: >> >> bayes: tok_get_all: SQL error: no

Re: Bayes - Problem using SQLite: SOLVED

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:22:49 +, Walter Hurry wrote: > I am experimenting with using SQLite for my Bayes db. > > However when I start spamd, it reports the following in > /var/log/maillog: > > bayes: tok_get_all: SQL error: no such function: RPAD > > This is correct, in that SQLite does not

Re: Bayes - Problem using SQLite

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:31:44 +, Jeremy McSpadden wrote: > SQLite is/can-be extremely slow with inserts/updates. It uses a > temporary file for each write operation. It also waits for the OS to > complete the insert/update. … Thats all assuming you can even get it > working. It's working fine

Re: Bayes - Problem using SQLite

SQLite is/can-be extremely slow with inserts/updates. It uses a temporary file for each write operation. It also waits for the OS to complete the insert/update. … Thats all assuming you can even get it working. -- Jeremy McSpadden Flux Labs, Inc | http://www.fluxlabs.net

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

Andrzej Adam Filip writes: >Fletcher Mattox wrote: >> 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 0 3

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

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

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

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

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

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

RE: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

> > 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

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

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

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

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

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

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

RE: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

[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_

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

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

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

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

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

Andrzej Adam Filip writes: >Fletcher Mattox wrote: >> 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 0 3

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

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

RE: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

> > 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

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

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.

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

Dan, 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 0.000 061

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

Duane Hill writes: >On Mon, 21 May 2007, Fletcher Mattox wrote: > >> 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 0

RE: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

You might review the runs of those 500 hams you think you trained. Only 86 hams show in your dump magic, so the training either failed (all dups?) or went into a different database (easy to do!). Dan -Original Message- From: Fletcher Mattox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 21,

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

Fletcher Mattox wrote: > 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 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db vers

Re: Bayes problem: very large spam/ham ratio

On Mon, 21 May 2007, Fletcher Mattox wrote: 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 0 3 0 non-token data: bay

RE: Bayes problem in 3.1.2?

Kai Schaetzl wrote: > Nels Lindquist wrote on Wed, 31 May 2006 10:04:54 -0600: > > > I removed the /var/lib/spamassassin/3.001002 > > directory which was blank > > It shouldn't exist after an install and if you ran sa-update it should > have content. Maybe an sa-update that got interrupted? I ha

Re: Bayes problem in 3.1.2?

Nels Lindquist wrote on Wed, 31 May 2006 10:04:54 -0600: > I removed the /var/lib/spamassassin/3.001002 > directory which was blank It shouldn't exist after an install and if you ran sa-update it should have content. Maybe an sa-update that got interrupted? Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, German

Re: Bayes problem in 3.1.2?

On 31 May 2006 at 11:50, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 09:46:52AM -0600, Nels Lindquist wrote: > > I tried upgrading from 3.1.1 to 3.1.2 today, but "spamassassin -- > > lint" turned up the following errors: > > > > [766] warn: config: warning: score set for non-existent rule BA

Re: Bayes problem in 3.1.2?

On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 09:46:52AM -0600, Nels Lindquist wrote: > I tried upgrading from 3.1.1 to 3.1.2 today, but "spamassassin -- > lint" turned up the following errors: > > [766] warn: config: warning: score set for non-existent rule BAYES_80 [...] > 3.1.1). Is there some larger issue here? "

Re: bayes problem

Payal Rathod wrote: >On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 02:11:19PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote: > > >>How is SA called? from procmail, or something else? >> >> > >For .qmail file with a script ifspamh > > > >>One major problem I see is that the bayes files have permissions of 400, >>but the bayes DB is

Re: bayes problem

On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 02:11:19PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote: > How is SA called? from procmail, or something else? For .qmail file with a script ifspamh > > One major problem I see is that the bayes files have permissions of 400, > but the bayes DB is site-wide. You generally need to use bayes_

Re: bayes problem

Payal Rathod wrote: >Hi, >I am looking after a friend's email server till he returns from his >vacation. In his local.cf (SA 2.61 and yes I know it is time for >upgrade) file he has, >bayes_path /etc/mail/spamassassin/bayes >use_bayes 1 >score BAYES_50 0.001 > >Also bayes is well trained with,

RE: bayes problem

Payal Rathod wrote: > #bayes_path /root/.spamassassin/bayes > use_bayes 1 The path seems wrong to me. Are you running spamd as it's own user? If so, that user needs access to the bayes files. The bayes_path setting is somewhat misnamed - /root/.spamassassin/bayes means that the path is /root/.

Re: bayes problem

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 11:37:35AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 0.000 0 2563 0 non-token data: nspam > 0.000 0 2963 0 non-token data: nham > > Once the third number in each of these lines is over 200, SpamAssassin will > turn on the BAYES_##

RE: bayes problem

Payal Rathod wrote: > Thanks a lot for the mails all of you. For how many more messages do > I have to train bayes? It is rather a tiring job. #sa-learn --dump magic 0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version 0.000 0 2563 0 non-token data: nsp

Re: bayes problem

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 01:07:43PM -0500, Andy Jezierski wrote: > You have to continually keep bayes updated! If not, it won't help much > with the ever changing nature of spam messages. Read through the docs [...] Thanks for the info. I am still a little bit unconvinced that bayes is really wo

Re: bayes problem

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 01:34:58PM -0400, Payal Rathod wrote: > You mean spamd -D, right. spamassassin -D just waits for till I > press ctrl-c No, I meant "run a message through spamassassin -D". > I modified the local.cf file slightly to have, > use_bayes 1 unnecessary, but ok... > debug: bay

Re: bayes problem

Payal Rathod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/04/2004 12:54:46 PM: > On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 12:48:18PM -0500, Andy Jezierski wrote: > > Yep, bayes is working, notice the BAYESS_99 rule hit above. Another thing > > to keep in mind is that Bayes only kicks in after you have 200 ham & 200 > > sp

Re: bayes problem

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 12:48:18PM -0500, Andy Jezierski wrote: > Yep, bayes is working, notice the BAYESS_99 rule hit above. Another thing > to keep in mind is that Bayes only kicks in after you have 200 ham & 200 > spam messages learned. Looks like your bayes has only recently gone above > the

Re: bayes problem

Payal Rathod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/04/2004 12:34:58 PM: > On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 01:13:50PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > > Watch the rest of the debug output, run "spamassassin -D", etc. > > You mean spamd -D, right. spamassassin -D just waits for till I > press ctrl-c > > I modi

Re: bayes problem

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 01:13:50PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > Watch the rest of the debug output, run "spamassassin -D", etc. You mean spamd -D, right. spamassassin -D just waits for till I press ctrl-c I modified the local.cf file slightly to have, #bayes_path /root/.spamassassin/bayes use_

Re: bayes problem

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 12:05:35PM -0500, Andy Jezierski wrote: > > In your local.cf you should have use_bayes 1 Now it is, required_hits 4.5 report_safe 0 skip_rbl_checks 1 rewrite_subject 1 subject_tag [SPAM] score DEAR_SOMETHING 0.8 score FROM_WEBMAIL_END_NUMS6 1.5 bayes_path /root/.spamass

Re: bayes problem

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 12:39:24PM -0400, Payal Rathod wrote: > > That's the init message being sent through spamd -- there are no Bayes DBs > > at > > that point. Ignore it. :) > > But how do I know for sure bayes is working or not? Watch the rest of the debug output, run "spamassassin -D", et

Re: bayes problem

Payal Rathod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/04/2004 11:58:23 AM: > On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 11:52:04AM -0500, Andy Jezierski wrote: > > Look farther down in the debug, after the plugins get loaded and before the > > DNS lookups.. > > [...] > > I get no such output. There are only 4 lines with

Re: bayes problem

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 11:52:04AM -0500, Andy Jezierski wrote: > Look farther down in the debug, after the plugins get loaded and before the > DNS lookups.. [...] I get no such output. There are only 4 lines with word bayes in them. Is there anything I am missing? Do I have to enable bayes somew

Re: bayes problem

Payal Rathod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/04/2004 11:39:24 AM: > On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 11:59:12AM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > > That's the init message being sent through spamd -- there are no Bayes DBs at > > that point. Ignore it. :) > > But how do I know for sure bayes is working

Re: bayes problem

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 11:59:12AM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > That's the init message being sent through spamd -- there are no Bayes DBs at > that point. Ignore it. :) But how do I know for sure bayes is working or not? -Payal

Re: bayes problem

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 04:40:14AM -0400, Payal Rathod wrote: > When I run spamd -D and find bayes there I have 4 lines of it, > debug: bayes: no dbs present, cannot scan: > /tmp/spamd-9119-init/.spamassassin/bayes_toks > debug: bayes: Not available for scanning, only 0 spam(s) in Bayes DB < 200 >

Re: bayes problem after Berkeley DB upgrade

I updated DB_File and all of the DB tools, but I still got errors. I used db_upgrade, db_dump, & db_load and they said the db's were unknown file types. So I just blew all the databases away. On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:51:14 -0400, Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 20,

Re: bayes problem after Berkeley DB upgrade

On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 12:47:21PM -0400, Dan wrote: > I upgraded Berkeley DB from db3 to db4 recently (as well as upgrading > Perl, Postfix, installing Amavis, and a score of modules) and now > Spamassassin is giving an error about the bayes db's: > > My assumption is that the bayes db's need to