On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 09:08:46 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >> On 03.03.16 16:54, RW wrote:
> >> >RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO is an independent deep check and overlaps
> >> >heavily with either FSL_* rule.
>
> >On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:59:33 +0100
> >Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >> I wouldn't s
Am 04.03.2016 um 09:29 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
I why are you complaining (again), when you can simply zero the score, when
you have no problem highly tuning other scores.
On 04.03.16 10:40, Reindl Harald wrote:
because this thread was about *another* deep header test and wrong
defaults
Am 04.03.2016 um 09:29 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
it would at best end in the rule get such a low score that it is
the same as disable it entirely - so the only correct thing to do
is stop the foolish deep-header parsing
why?
because *then* it would no longer hit any relevant amount of h
it would at best end in the rule get such a low score that it is
the same as disable it entirely - so the only correct thing to do
is stop the foolish deep-header parsing
why?
because *then* it would no longer hit any relevant amount of ham
and QA corpus over time could score it higher in a safe
On 03.03.16 16:54, RW wrote:
>RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO is an independent deep check and overlaps heavily
>with either FSL_* rule.
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:59:33 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I wouldn't say so, at least on my system.
% zcat /var/log/mail*.gz | cat - /var/log/mail /var/log/mail.1 |
Am 03.03.2016 um 21:17 schrieb Axb:
On 03/03/2016 09:10 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.03.2016 um 20:59 schrieb Axb:
That YOU don't like deep header parsing rule doesn't mean that they're
useless.
Maybe it's time that you, as a self proclamied perfectionist, fork SA
and do your thing.
mayb
On 03/03/2016 09:10 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.03.2016 um 20:59 schrieb Axb:
On 03/03/2016 08:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
how do you suppose the corpus to replace ones own thinking about the
*conditions* rules hit?
I've no idea what the sentence means.
the deep-header rules have to go
Am 03.03.2016 um 20:59 schrieb Axb:
On 03/03/2016 08:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
how do you suppose the corpus to replace ones own thinking about the
*conditions* rules hit?
I've no idea what the sentence means.
the deep-header rules have to go away or rewritten to *not* do
deep-header test
On 03/03/2016 08:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.03.2016 um 19:39 schrieb RW:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 18:51:45 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.03.2016 um 17:54 schrieb RW:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:18:36 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
it would at best end in the rule get such a low score that it is
Am 03.03.2016 um 19:39 schrieb RW:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 18:51:45 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.03.2016 um 17:54 schrieb RW:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:18:36 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
it would at best end in the rule get such a low score that it is
the same as disable it entirely - so the only
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 18:51:45 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 03.03.2016 um 17:54 schrieb RW:
> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:18:36 +0100
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> >> it would at best end in the rule get such a low score that it is
> >> the same as disable it entirely - so the only correct thing to
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:59:33 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 03.03.16 16:54, RW wrote:
> >FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_1 is a last-external check
> >FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 is a deep check with some additional exclusions
> >
> >These are mutually exclusive _1 suppresses _2
>
> it's because
>
> 72_activ
Am 03.03.2016 um 17:59 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 03.03.16 16:54, RW wrote:
FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_1 is a last-external check
FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 is a deep check with some additional exclusions
These are mutually exclusive _1 suppresses _2
it's because
72_active.cf:metaFSL_HELO_BARE_I
Am 03.03.2016 um 17:54 schrieb RW:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:18:36 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
it would at best end in the rule get such a low score that it is the
same as disable it entirely - so the only correct thing to do is stop
the foolish deep-header parsing
why?
because *then* it would n
Am 03.03.2016 um 17:54 schrieb RW:
What make this all the more remarkable is that at the time you brought
it up, the meta rules were wrong and most of the hits that should have
gone to FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_1 were going to FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 instead, so
you probably overestimated the spam hitting the
On 03.03.16 16:54, RW wrote:
FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_1 is a last-external check
FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 is a deep check with some additional exclusions
These are mutually exclusive _1 suppresses _2
it's because
72_active.cf:metaFSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 __FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 && !ALL_TRUSTED &&
!FSL_HEL
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:18:36 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> it would at best end in the rule get such a low score that it is the
> same as disable it entirely - so the only correct thing to do is stop
> the foolish deep-header parsing
>
> why?
>
> because *then* it would no longer hit any relevan
Am 03.03.2016 um 15:04 schrieb RW:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:58:30 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.03.2016 um 13:47 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:25:17 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
your expectation that the mass-test corpus can reproduce the whole
real world is fundamentally broken
Unbeli
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:58:30 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 03.03.2016 um 13:47 schrieb RW:
> > On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:25:17 +0100
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> your expectation that the mass-test corpus can reproduce the whole
> >> real world is fundamentally broken
> >
> > Unbelievable.
> >
>
Am 03.03.2016 um 13:47 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:25:17 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.03.2016 um 23:13 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:45:15 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.03.2016 um 22:12 schrieb RW:
The only argument you have made against these rules is that they
don't wor
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:25:17 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 02.03.2016 um 23:13 schrieb RW:
> > On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:45:15 +0100
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> >> Am 02.03.2016 um 22:12 schrieb RW:
> >>> The only argument you have made against these rules is that they
> >>> don't work for you
Am 02.03.2016 um 23:13 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:45:15 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.03.2016 um 22:12 schrieb RW:
The only argument you have made against these rules is that they
don't work for you. They do work on the corpus that generates the
rule scores, so clearly the corpus d
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:45:15 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 02.03.2016 um 22:12 schrieb RW:
> > The only argument you have made against these rules is that they
> > don't work for you. They do work on the corpus that generates the
> > rule scores, so clearly the corpus does matter
>
> VERY_LONG
Am 02.03.2016 um 22:12 schrieb RW:
The only argument you have made against these rules is that they don't
work for you. They do work on the corpus that generates the rule scores,
so clearly the corpus does matter
VERY_LONG_REPTO_SHORT_MSG with a poison-pill score showed how much you
can trus
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:58:10 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 02.03.2016 um 14:12 schrieb RW:
> > The FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_* rules were a bit broken until the end of
> > January, but for the last month they have been proper mutually
> > exclusive, deep and last-external tests. Any problems with the deep
Am 02.03.2016 um 14:12 schrieb RW:
The FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_* rules were a bit broken until the end of
January, but for the last month they have been proper mutually
exclusive, deep and last-external tests. Any problems with the deep
hits are down to the rule generation corpus not matching your mai
On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 23:39:58 +0100
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> That one should not trigger in deap header tests
RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO doesn't do what the description says. It's actually a
*bare* IP address test (i.e. for an RFC violation rather than simply
an IP address), something that is better covered
Am 01.03.2016 um 23:39 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
That one should not trigger in deap header tests
see my thread about FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 fire on deep headers a month ago
and guess how much somebody cares
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
28 matches
Mail list logo
