Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Thursday, November 28 2013, Kris Deugau wrote: > I'm not quite sure I understand what you're trying to obscure, and > chances are it's causing a lot of your trouble. Disable this for a > while and see what happens. On Friday, November 29 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > On Thu, 2013-11-28

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 17:02 -0500, Kris Deugau wrote: > Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > > UNPARSABLE_RELAY was happening because I modify the headers of > > every message sent through my server in order to anonymize the > > sender's IP address; Do NOT do that. SA absolutely must have the full, co

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 19:33 -0200, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > Having said that, my SA is still missing lots of spams. For example, > take a look at: > > > This doesn't score much better here (2.9) but this is a type of spam I don't see. However, t

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > On Monday, November 11 2013, I wrote: > >> Hi there, > > Hi, again! > > I am sorry to ressurect this thread, but after some time, investigation > and fixes, I would like to share what I did and ask for more opinions. > > First, I have fixed the previous warnings t

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On 11/28/2013 10:33 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: On Monday, November 11 2013, I wrote: Hi there, Hi, again! I am sorry to ressurect this thread, but after some time, investigation and fixes, I would like to share what I did and ask for more opinions. First, I have fixed the previous war

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Monday, November 11 2013, I wrote: > Hi there, Hi, again! I am sorry to ressurect this thread, but after some time, investigation and fixes, I would like to share what I did and ask for more opinions. First, I have fixed the previous warnings that I was seeing on the messages. URI_BLOCKED w

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2013-11-12 09:29: it's not always easy to convince mail admin to add your favourite hosts to do-not-scan list... not needed if spf testing is done in mta stage, if spf testing in sa stage its needed to know what is missing :=)

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

Karsten Bräckelmann skrev den 2013-11-12 07:03: If that still ain't sufficient to answer your question, Benny, please open your own thread with an appropriate Subject and without replying to an existing thread. well its sufficient, just wondered how other did it, in the so called "good" way

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

John Hardin skrev den 2013-11-12 02:24: That's not what Karsten was suggesting. If you get spam via that mailing list you should complain to the list admin that they need to do a better job of filtering their inbound. On 12.11.13 02:47, Benny Pedersen wrote: olso that spf test would work on in

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 05:57 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote: > Karsten Bräckelmann skrev den 2013-11-12 05:44: > > > In other words: If all you're being taught as a child is good, how will > > you ever know what is bad? > > this is also my question, when to use bayes ignore I have no fscking clue, h

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

Karsten Bräckelmann skrev den 2013-11-12 05:44: In other words: If all you're being taught as a child is good, how will you ever know what is bad? this is also my question, when to use bayes ignore will it just ignore the bayes ignore header or whole mail if its found ?

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 01:57 -0200, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > On Tuesday, November 12 2013, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > Karsten Bräckelmann skrev den 2013-11-12 03:20: > > > > > [1] Also, just as shown in this thread, properly handling list posts is > > > not trivial. > > > > maillist is good

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Tuesday, November 12 2013, Benny Pedersen wrote: > Karsten Bräckelmann skrev den 2013-11-12 03:20: > >> [1] Also, just as shown in this thread, properly handling list posts is >> not trivial. > > maillist is good ham learning spams :) Yeah, that's a good reason to keep scanning mailing lis

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Monday, November 11 2013, John Hardin wrote: > It's a very good idea to retain your training corpora. It makes it a > lot easier to review if Bayes goes off the rails, and to wipe and > retrain from scratch if problems occur. That's a good reason for keeping them around. >> Currently, in my .

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

Karsten Bräckelmann skrev den 2013-11-12 03:20: [1] Also, just as shown in this thread, properly handling list posts is not trivial. maillist is good ham learning spams :) yes i know, but could not resists, users that dont use shortcircuit rules will make more unneded cpu curcles but its

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 17:24 -0800, John Hardin wrote: > On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > > Currently, in my .procmailrc, the first thing I do is scan for spam. > > However, as you have noticed, this scanning also covers mailing lists > > (and everything else). I think I will tw

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

John Hardin skrev den 2013-11-12 02:24: That's not what Karsten was suggesting. If you get spam via that mailing list you should complain to the list admin that they need to do a better job of filtering their inbound. olso that spf test would work on initial sender domain if you add maillist

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: On Monday, November 11 2013, John Hardin wrote: On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: Here is an example of a misclassified spam message: There's not a lot there for SA to work with.

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: However, I had some direct spams before, but as I explined in the other thread, I deleted them after I fed sa-learn. It's a very good idea to retain your training corpora. It makes it a lot easier to review if Bayes goes off the rails, and to

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Monday, November 11 2013, John Hardin wrote: > On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > >> Here is an example of a misclassified spam message: >> >> > > There's not a lot there for SA to work with. Indeed. Sorry, that was the only spam I

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Monday, November 11 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 20:26 -0200, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >> Here is an example of a misclassified spam message: >> >> >> (This spam message was sent to a mailing list, not directly to my

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: Here is an example of a misclassified spam message: There's not a lot there for SA to work with. The biggest issue is URIBL_BLOCKED. Your URIBL queries are being blocked, likely because you're usin

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 20:26 -0200, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > Here is an example of a misclassified spam message: > > > (This spam message was sent to a mailing list, not directly to my > address, as can be seen. I still don't have spams that were