On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, Jerry Pape wrote:
Oops, further investigation indicates that Bayes is "on"--thought the
default was "off" for my config. I would be inclined to turn it off as I have
no decent way of teaching it beyond mass-config into the future--please
advise.
Training is critical. If
Oops, further investigation indicates that Bayes is "on"--thought the
default was "off" for my config. I would be inclined to turn it off as I
have no decent way of teaching it beyond mass-config into the
future--please advise.
JP
On 10/17/10 10:37 PM, Jerry Pape wrote:
Wow, I am grateful f
Wow, I am grateful for the prompt answers, but I must say they have
confused me.
Bayes should not be on in my config and subsequent check of the GUI says
its not--this may be wrong.
Further, what are the "scoreset" indexes?
I don't use Bayes because all of my clients are POP mail and they a
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, John Hardin wrote:
There are four score sets to choose from based on what options you have
enabled. The above is for scoreset 2, no BAYES + net tests.
Crap. That should be "scoreset 1". Sorry.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, Jerry Pape wrote:
[Not sure if this is the right place to send this--please correct me if
I am in error]
This is the place.
Assessment of this header at http://www.futurequest.net/docs/SA/decode/
yields:
TestScore Description
BAYES_400.000 Bayesian spam
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 17:05 -0700, Jerry Pape wrote:
> At some time in the not too distant past, my otherwise reliable SA
> system has broken in an odd way.
>
> This example is characteristic of the problem:
Can't follow. It is broken, because SA itself reports something
different from an unrelat
On 10/17/2010 7:05 PM, Jerry Pape wrote:
[snip]
> x-spam-status reads: No, score=3.8 required=4.0
> tests=BAYES_40,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,
> HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RDNS_NONE,URIBL_BLACK
> autolearn=no version=3.2.5
>
> Assessment of this header at http://www.futurequ
All,
[Not sure if this is the right place to send this--please correct me if
I am in error]
At some time in the not too distant past, my otherwise reliable SA
system has broken in an odd way.
This example is characteristic of the problem:
Cheap Airline Tickets email received--clearly junk
Josie Walls wrote:
Hello All,
Can anyone provide insight into what this means and how to rectify it?:
2.9 TVD_SPACE_RATIO BODY: TVD_SPACE_RATIO
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/TVD_SPACE_RATIO
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rules/20_body_tests.cf?view=marku
On Jul 30, 2006, at 5:18 PM, jdow wrote:
(You DO review your spam mailbox before
tossing the spam, don't you?
Sort of... what I do (at home) is:
0) MIMEDefang rejects anything that scores >= 10. MIMEDefang also
rejects anything that doesn't have a PTR record, or has a PTR record
that does
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jul 30, 2006, at 4:37 PM, jdow wrote:
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jul 26, 2006, at 5:23 PM, jdow wrote:
I am a bit of a heretic in this group because I take the nasty step
of taking rules that are almost always right (one error per thous
On Jul 30, 2006, at 4:37 PM, jdow wrote:
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jul 26, 2006, at 5:23 PM, jdow wrote:
I am a bit of a heretic in this group because I take the nasty step
of taking rules that are almost always right (one error per thousand
or more hits) and make sure the sco
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jul 26, 2006, at 5:23 PM, jdow wrote:
I am a bit of a heretic in this group because I take the nasty step
of taking rules that are almost always right (one error per thousand
or more hits) and make sure the score on the rule is designed to
push the score
From: "Nix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] yowled:
My impression is that the perceptron tries to cluster scores NEAR 5.0
with as much spam as possible over 5.0 and as little ham as possible
over 5.0.
Well, it doesn't *try* to cluster, but since it'll keep tweaking
On Jul 26, 2006, at 5:23 PM, jdow wrote:
I am a bit of a heretic in this group because I take the nasty step
of taking rules that are almost always right (one error per thousand
or more hits) and make sure the score on the rule is designed to
push the score AWAY from 5.0 in the appropriate dire
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] yowled:
> My impression is that the perceptron tries to cluster scores NEAR 5.0
> with as much spam as possible over 5.0 and as little ham as possible
> over 5.0.
Well, it doesn't *try* to cluster, but since it'll keep tweaking until
as many FPs and FNs as po
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jul 26, 2006, at 9:07 AM, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 07:43:51AM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
When that score is developed, how is it decided that the scores have
settled? When a "95% of the spam in the corpus got ranked 5 or
higher"? 8
From: "Jim Maul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Chris Santerre wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:44 AM
> To: Chris Santerre
> Cc: Sietse van Zanen; SpamAssassin Users
> Subject: Re:
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jul 26, 2006, at 6:40 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:38 AM
> To: Sietse van Zanen
> Cc: SpamAssassin Users
> S
On Jul 26, 2006, at 9:33, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 09:25:49AM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
Hm. I have no such files in my rules directory. (I'm running 3.1.1)
Are you looking at the installed default rules directory (not called
"rules") or the rules directory in the distrib
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 09:25:49AM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
> Hm. I have no such files in my rules directory. (I'm running 3.1.1)
Are you looking at the installed default rules directory (not called
"rules") or the rules directory in the distribution/tarball (called
"rules")?
--
Randomly Generat
On Jul 26, 2006, at 9:07 AM, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 07:43:51AM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
When that score is developed, how is it decided that the scores have
settled? When a "95% of the spam in the corpus got ranked 5 or
higher"? 80%? 100%? That's the comparison I'm l
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 07:43:51AM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
> When that score is developed, how is it decided that the scores have
> settled? When a "95% of the spam in the corpus got ranked 5 or
> higher"? 80%? 100%? That's the comparison I'm looking for.
It's a learning system, so it's done
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:56:18AM -0400, Jim Maul wrote:
> Hurts more than it helps? Probably not. But it *does* cause weird
> things like BAYES_80 being scored higher than BAYES_95.
>
> body Bayesian spam probability is 80 to 95% BAYES_80 0 0 3.608 2.0
> body Bayesian spam probability i
Chris Santerre wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:44 AM
> To: Chris Santerre
> Cc: Sietse van Zanen; SpamAssassin Users
> Subject: Re: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage
>
>
>
Title: RE: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:44 AM
> To: Chris Santerre
> Cc: Sietse van Zanen; SpamAssassin Users
> Subject: Re: SA Score -> Confidence Perc
On Jul 26, 2006, at 6:40 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:38 AM
> To: Sietse van Zanen
> Cc: SpamAssassin Users
> Subject: Re: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage
>
>
The base rules are scored using a process that attempts to maximize
spam hits while minimizing false positives. They are geared toward a
user who has the default spam threshold of 5 points.
The percentages would probably vary significantly depending on who
runs them and what types of spam/ham the
-Sietse
From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 26-Jul-06 12:37
To: Sietse van Zanen
Cc: SpamAssassin Users
Subject: Re: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage
I can see how plugins and add-on rules all affect it, but certainly
they have some sort of base comparison t
Title: RE: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:38 AM
> To: Sietse van Zanen
> Cc: SpamAssassin Users
> Subject: Re: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage
>
&g
I can see how plugins and add-on rules all affect it, but certainly
they have some sort of base comparison that lets them know when they've
gotten the right score values for the base rules, right?
On Jul 26, 2006, at 3:22 AM, Sietse van Zanen wrote:
I think such a thing would be very diffic
I think such a thing would be very difficult. Because scoring is mostly
dependant on your personal configuration of SA. The more plugins you use, the
higher the score will be. And that is independant of spam probability.
You might be able to compare bayes probabilities with SA scores, but autom
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 1:45 PM
To: Johnson, S; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: SA Score
Are you using rewrite_header Subject SPAM(_SCORE_)
Per the upgrade docs?
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/spamassassin/branches/3
From: "Johnson, S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I recently upgraded from 2.5 to 3 and am attempting to use the _SCORE_
in the tag. However, when the tag comes back instead of replacing the
_SCORE_ with the actual score, it' just "***SPAM***(_SCORE). Any ideas
<<
At 02:16 PM 12/14/2004, Johnson, S wrote:
I recently upgraded from 2.5 to 3 and am attempting to use the _SCORE_ in
the tag. However, when the tag comes back instead of replacing the
_SCORE_ with the actual score, it' just "***SPAM***(_SCORE). Any ideas
why I'm seeing this?
Any chance you are
Are you using rewrite_header Subject SPAM(_SCORE_)
Per the upgrade docs?
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/spamassassin/branches/3.0/UPGRADE
From: Johnson, S [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 2:17 PM
To
36 matches
Mail list logo
