Dennis,
On 7/31/2009 8:36 AM, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
I couldn't get sa-stats to give me any useful information. I did get
amavis-logwatch and I am not sure if I like what it's showing me. I ran it
against the last few maillogs I have so it encompasses basically the
last month. Here is the relev
Quoting Karsten Bräckelmann :
If I'm reading that correctly less then 50% of mail is actually
being filtered (seems like it should be higher then that). Those stats
Actually, the numbers you gave for the "last couple days" are even
lower. About one third, <15k out of 45k do have a BAYES_xx hit
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 10:36 -0500, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
> I couldn't get sa-stats to give me any useful information.
AFAIK it understands spamd logs, not Amavis logs. You would need to
adjust the script for that -- as discussed just a few days ago.
> If I'm reading that correctly less then 50%
Quoting Karsten Bräckelmann :
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 06:07 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
> I cleared my maia statistics a couple of days ago. Since then
BAYES_00 has
> triggered 4510 times, BAYES_99 2366 times and BAYES_50 1568 (all the other
> BAYES
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
Quoting John Hardin :
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
> I cleared my maia statistics a couple of days ago. Since then
> BAYES_00 has triggered 4510 times, BAYES_99 2366 times and BAYES_50
> 1568 (all the other BAYES_XX are less then 100
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
The main issue here is that your numbers don't add up, only about 1 in
10 of your 45,000 messages processed by spamassassin are accounted for
in the BAYES statistics.
...which was my point. Rather than troubleshooting learning, at this point
Dennis should be tr
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:53:00 -0500
"Dennis B. Hopp" wrote:
> I cleared my maia statistics a couple of days ago. Since then
> BAYES_00 has triggered 4510 times, BAYES_99 2366 times and BAYES_50
> 1568 (all the other BAYES_XX are less then 1000 times). In those
> same couple of days we have p
Quoting John Hardin :
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
I cleared my maia statistics a couple of days ago. Since then
BAYES_00 has triggered 4510 times, BAYES_99 2366 times and BAYES_50
1568 (all the other BAYES_XX are less then 1000 times).
Do they all add up to about 45,000?
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 06:07 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
>
> > I cleared my maia statistics a couple of days ago. Since then BAYES_00 has
> > triggered 4510 times, BAYES_99 2366 times and BAYES_50 1568 (all the other
> > BAYES_XX are less then 1000 time
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 07:53 -0500, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
> I know that the bayes success rate comes down to training, but like
> every other administrator I can't possible check every message for
> accuracy and I was hoping to make the auto learn a little better. I
> thought maybe I just did
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
I cleared my maia statistics a couple of days ago. Since then BAYES_00 has
triggered 4510 times, BAYES_99 2366 times and BAYES_50 1568 (all the other
BAYES_XX are less then 1000 times).
Do they all add up to about 45,000?
In those same couple of da
Quoting RW :
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:55:48 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
The default of 0.1. It's a default for a reason.
But that *really* is not your problem. Your problem is with learning
spam, not learning even more ham. Just as you mentioned in your
original report. See my previous r
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:55:48 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> The default of 0.1. It's a default for a reason.
>
> But that *really* is not your problem. Your problem is with learning
> spam, not learning even more ham. Just as you mentioned in your
> original report. See my previous response
Quoting LuKreme :
On Jul 30, 2009, at 18:12, "Dennis B. Hopp" wrote:
Yeah I knew that. I have a few negative scoring rules but not many
(outside of what might be in the misc rules sets I have). What is
a good threshold for ham then?
5.0 is the score SA us designed for. It's a very goo
On Jul 30, 2009, at 18:12, "Dennis B. Hopp" wrote:
Yeah I knew that. I have a few negative scoring rules but not many
(outside of what might be in the misc rules sets I have). What is a
good threshold for ham then?
5.0 is the score SA us designed for. It's a very good number in almost
a
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 19:12 -0500, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
> Quoting RW :
>
> > Bear in mind that autolearning uses it's own version of the score that
> > excludes whitelisting and Bayes, which means that very little ham will
> > reach the -1 threshold unless you've added your own site-specific rule
Quoting RW :
Bear in mind that autolearning uses it's own version of the score that
excludes whitelisting and Bayes, which means that very little ham will
reach the -1 threshold unless you've added your own site-specific rules
for identifying it.
Yeah I knew that. I have a few negative scor
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:28:49 -0500
"Dennis B. Hopp" wrote:
> I'm using maia-mailguard with spamassassin 3.2.5. For the most part
> it seems to be working ok but I feel like too many messages are
> hitting BAYES_00 (roughly 3.7% of all messages)
3.7% of all messages sounds far too *low*, mo
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:28 -0500, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
> I'm using maia-mailguard with spamassassin 3.2.5. For the most part
> it seems to be working ok but I feel like too many messages are
> hitting BAYES_00 (roughly 3.7% of all messages) and BAYES_99 is only
> hitting about 1.7%. I hav
19 matches
Mail list logo
