I think you are missing that a particular newsletter is not
intrinsically ham or spam. It is ham if the user has subscribed, and
spam if they have not affirmatively subscribed.
I have seen the very same content arrive at my mailserver for 2 users.
For one it is ham and the other it is spam.
Ther
On 2024-10-15 at 22:05:07 UTC-0400 (Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:05:07 -0400)
Alex
is rumored to have said:
I can imagine the newsletter template is somewhat common, but does
bayes
have any ability to distinguish a junk newsletter from a legitimate
newsletter?
Not if it has never seen either of them.
> I can imagine the newsletter template is somewhat common, but does bayes
> have any ability to distinguish a junk newsletter from a legitimate
> newsletter?
How can bayes, if you also can't? My advice would be to mark eg everything from
mailchimp and than whitelist what you indeed agreed to re
On 10/16/24 04:05, Alex wrote:
Would I benefit from training known trustworthy newsletters such as ham?
Yes, you would.
David B Funk schrieb am 10.05.2018 um 20:23:
On Thu, 10 May 2018, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2018, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
On 09/05/18 20:43, David Jones wrote:
On 05/09/2018 01:29 PM, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
On 09/05/18 16:37, Reindl Harald wrote:
quoting URIBL_BLOCKED is a joke
On Thu, 10 May 2018, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2018, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
On 09/05/18 20:43, David Jones wrote:
On 05/09/2018 01:29 PM, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
On 09/05/18 16:37, Reindl Harald wrote:
quoting URIBL_BLOCKED is a joke - setup a *recursion* *non-forwarding*
namese
On Thu, 10 May 2018, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
On 09/05/18 20:43, David Jones wrote:
On 05/09/2018 01:29 PM, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
On 09/05/18 16:37, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.05.2018 um 16:28 schrieb Matthew Broadhead:
it looks like it is working. so maybe it is just not flagging or mo
On 10.05.18 15:23, David Jones wrote:
On 05/10/2018 07:12 AM, Reio Remma wrote:
On 10.05.18 15:08, David Jones wrote:
On 05/10/2018 07:02 AM, Reio Remma wrote:
On a slightly related note. We're running a PFSense firewall with
DNS Forwarder (dnsmasq) in front of our mail server. From what I've
On 05/10/2018 07:12 AM, Reio Remma wrote:
On 10.05.18 15:08, David Jones wrote:
On 05/10/2018 07:02 AM, Reio Remma wrote:
On 10.05.18 14:58, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Am 09.05.2018 um 16:28 schrieb Matthew Broadhead:
i guess my dns is set to use my isp's dns server. do i need to
set up d
Am 09.05.2018 um 16:28 schrieb Matthew Broadhead:
i guess my dns is set to use my isp's dns server. do i need
to set up dns relay on my machine so it comes from my ip?
there is no way we send more than 500k emails from our domain
so i should qualify for the free lookup?
On 09/05/18 20:43,
On 10.05.18 15:08, David Jones wrote:
On 05/10/2018 07:02 AM, Reio Remma wrote:
On 10.05.18 14:58, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Am 09.05.2018 um 16:28 schrieb Matthew Broadhead:
i guess my dns is set to use my isp's dns server. do i need to
set up dns relay on my machine so it comes from my
On 05/10/2018 07:02 AM, Reio Remma wrote:
On 10.05.18 14:58, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Am 09.05.2018 um 16:28 schrieb Matthew Broadhead:
i guess my dns is set to use my isp's dns server. do i need to set
up dns relay on my machine so it comes from my ip?
there is no way we send more than
On 10.05.18 14:58, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Am 09.05.2018 um 16:28 schrieb Matthew Broadhead:
i guess my dns is set to use my isp's dns server. do i need to set
up dns relay on my machine so it comes from my ip?
there is no way we send more than 500k emails from our domain so i
should q
Am 09.05.2018 um 16:28 schrieb Matthew Broadhead:
i guess my dns is set to use my isp's dns server. do i need to
set up dns relay on my machine so it comes from my ip?
there is no way we send more than 500k emails from our domain so
i should qualify for the free lookup?
On 09/05/18 20:43,
On 09/05/18 20:43, David Jones wrote:
On 05/09/2018 01:29 PM, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
On 09/05/18 16:37, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.05.2018 um 16:28 schrieb Matthew Broadhead:
it looks like it is working. so maybe it is just not flagging or
moving
the spam?
in a differnt post you showed t
On 05/09/2018 01:29 PM, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
On 09/05/18 16:37, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.05.2018 um 16:28 schrieb Matthew Broadhead:
it looks like it is working. so maybe it is just not flagging or moving
the spam?
in a differnt post you showed this status header which *clearly* shows
On 09/05/18 16:37, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.05.2018 um 16:28 schrieb Matthew Broadhead:
it looks like it is working. so maybe it is just not flagging or moving
the spam?
in a differnt post you showed this status header which *clearly* shows
bayes is working - bayes alone don't flag, the tot
On 09/05/18 16:37, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.05.2018 um 16:28 schrieb Matthew Broadhead:
it looks like it is working. so maybe it is just not flagging or moving
the spam?
in a differnt post you showed this status header which *clearly* shows
bayes is working - bayes alone don't flag, the tot
On Wed, 9 May 2018, Reio Remma wrote:
On 9 May 2018, at 18:33, John Hardin wrote:
Also:
On Wed, 9 May 2018, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
your message has
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.15 tagged_above=-999 required=6.2
Setting the threshold higher will result in more spam getting through. The
> On 9 May 2018, at 18:33, John Hardin wrote:
>
> Also:
>
>> On Wed, 9 May 2018, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
>>
>> your message has
>>
>> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.15 tagged_above=-999 required=6.2
>
> Setting the threshold higher will result in more spam getting through. The
> scores calc
Also:
On Wed, 9 May 2018, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
your message has
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.15 tagged_above=-999 required=6.2
Setting the threshold higher will result in more spam getting through. The
scores calculated by the masscheck processes are based on the assumption
that the th
On Wed, 9 May 2018, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
[root@ns1 ~]# sudo -H -u amavis bash -c '/usr/bin/sa-learn --dump magic'
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 32225 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 440420 0 non
On 09/05/18 16:03, Reio Remma wrote:
On 09.05.18 16:59, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
setting log_level and sa_debug in /etc/amavisd/amavisd.conf didn't
seem to make any difference. should i be doing it in
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf?
See if $sa_debug=1 works (for full debug)? (and restart ama
On 09.05.18 16:59, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
setting log_level and sa_debug in /etc/amavisd/amavisd.conf didn't
seem to make any difference. should i be doing it in
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf?
See if $sa_debug=1 works (for full debug)? (and restart amavisd).
Reio
ok now i am getting a lot
On 09/05/18 15:48, Reio Remma wrote:
On 09.05.18 16:33, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
On 08/05/18 21:53, Reio Remma wrote:
On 08.05.2018 22:08, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
system setup centos-release-7-4.1708.el7.centos.x86_64,
spamassassin-3.4.0-2.el7.x86_64,
On 09.05.18 16:33, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
On 08/05/18 21:53, Reio Remma wrote:
On 08.05.2018 22:08, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
system setup centos-release-7-4.1708.el7.centos.x86_64,
spamassassin-3.4.0-2.el7.x86_64, amavisd-new-2.11.0-3.el7.noarch
/etc
On 08/05/18 21:53, Reio Remma wrote:
On 08.05.2018 22:08, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
system setup centos-release-7-4.1708.el7.centos.x86_64,
spamassassin-3.4.0-2.el7.x86_64, amavisd-new-2.11.0-3.el7.noarch
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf:
required_hits 5
On 09/05/18 09:09, Reio Remma wrote:
On 09.05.18 9:57, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
BAYES_00=-1.9
I've personally set *bayes_sql_override_username = amavis* in my local.cf
If at all possible, run amavisd with SA bayes debug to see if/how it's
using the database.
Good luck,
Reio
Thanks Reio
On 09.05.18 9:57, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
BAYES_00=-1.9
I've personally set *bayes_sql_override_username = amavis* in my local.cf
If at all possible, run amavisd with SA bayes debug to see if/how it's
using the database.
Good luck,
Reio
(1)
[root@ns1 ~]# sudo -H -u amavis bash -c '/usr/bin/sa-learn --dump magic'
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 32225 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 440420 0 non-token data: nham
0.000 0 159
On Tue, 8 May 2018, Reio Remma wrote:
On 08.05.2018 22:08, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
system setup centos-release-7-4.1708.el7.centos.x86_64,
spamassassin-3.4.0-2.el7.x86_64, amavisd-new-2.11.0-3.el7.noarch
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf:
required_hits
On 08.05.2018 22:08, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
system setup centos-release-7-4.1708.el7.centos.x86_64,
spamassassin-3.4.0-2.el7.x86_64, amavisd-new-2.11.0-3.el7.noarch
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf:
required_hits 5
report_safe 0
rewrite_header Subject [
On Tue, 8 May 2018, Matthew Broadhead wrote:
system setup centos-release-7-4.1708.el7.centos.x86_64,
spamassassin-3.4.0-2.el7.x86_64, amavisd-new-2.11.0-3.el7.noarch
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf:
required_hits 5
report_safe 0
rewrite_header Subject [SPAM]
use_bayes 1
bayes_auto_le
Am 02.10.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Andrew Davidson:
I'm not an expert on the mechanics of Bayes so I'm wondering how valuable it is
to continue training with collected spam that is properly tagged with BAYES_999.
Does that help to reinforce the logic or is it overly focusing the database on
emai
On 02.10.15 13:15, Andrew Davidson wrote:
I'm not an expert on the mechanics of Bayes so I'm wondering how
valuable it is to continue training with collected spam that is
properly tagged with BAYES_999.
Does that help to reinforce the logic or is it overly focusing the
database on emails it can
I collect spam this way, periodically I scan the mail logs looking for
"unknown user" entries and sort the results - usernames/email addresses
that are repeatedly being "guessed" get an alias entry added that
forwards the spam to a spam mailbox. I have about 20 of these now that
are aliased
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:14 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, John Traweek CCNA, Sec+ wrote:
>
> I've built a gateway server using sa-exim to filter email for our
>>
>
> This topic comes up fairly regularly. Did you search the list archives on
> terms like "exchange bayes" ?
>
Since
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, John Traweek CCNA, Sec+ wrote:
I've built a gateway server using sa-exim to filter email for our
corporate Microsoft Exchange environment. It's working pretty good, but
I have Bayes turned off due to the fact that I am unsure on how to train
it in this type of environment.
Am 09.10.2014 um 21:43 schrieb John Traweek CCNA, Sec+:
I’ve built a gateway server using sa-exim to filter email for our
corporate Microsoft Exchange environment. It’s working pretty good, but
I have Bayes turned off due to the fact that I am unsure on how to train
it in this type of environme
On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 18:10 +, Dominic Benson wrote:
> Recently, in order to balance the ham/spam ratio given to sa-learn, I
> have started to pass mail submitted by authenticated users to sa-learn
> --ham.
> The thinking here is that users would generally want to receive mail
> that they se
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:10:08 +, Dominic Benson
wrote:
> The approach, if anyone is interested, is to use an "unseen" Exim router
> to pipe mail to sa-learn --ham using the pipe transport, on the
> condition that an acl_m variable, set for authenticated users in
> acl_check_rcpt, evaluates
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:10:08 +
> Dominic Benson wrote:
>
> > Recently, in order to balance the ham/spam ratio given to sa-learn, I
> > have started to pass mail submitted by authenticated users to
> > sa-learn --ham.
>
> > I haven't seen any mentio
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:39, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
> On 28/01/2011 2:53 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:10:08 +
>> Dominic Benson wrote:
>>
>>> Recently, in order to balance the ham/spam ratio given to sa-learn, I
>>> have started to pass mail submitted by authenticated
On 28/01/2011 2:53 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:10:08 +
Dominic Benson wrote:
Recently, in order to balance the ham/spam ratio given to sa-learn, I
have started to pass mail submitted by authenticated users to
sa-learn --ham.
I haven't seen any mention of this strategy
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:10:08 +
Dominic Benson wrote:
> Recently, in order to balance the ham/spam ratio given to sa-learn, I
> have started to pass mail submitted by authenticated users to
> sa-learn --ham.
> I haven't seen any mention of this strategy on-list or on the web, so
> I'm inter
On 27.12.08 22:49, JC Putter wrote:
> Id like to know of you can train bayes with *.msg format or Must it be eml
> format? I know that outlook express uses eml but office outlook uses msg
> format?
the message must be raw, plaintext message body as is transferred over the
network. msg is afaik a b
Philip Seccombe wrote:
Does anyone have any ideas how I can get the emails back on the
server, or keep a copy on the server to create a bayes database on?
I thought of forwarding emails back, but then its a forwarded email
and not the actual one which will mess up the database.
I've no
ically).
--Will
-Original Message-
From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 7:36 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Training Bayes properly
From: "Stefan Jakobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Am Freitag, 30. Juni 2006 02:09 schrieb Rick
... I've got the sa-stats (and a modified
version) that I run periodically).
--Will
-Original Message-
From: jdow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 7:36 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Training Bayes properly
From: "Stefan Jakobs" <[EM
From: "Stefan Jakobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Am Freitag, 30. Juni 2006 02:09 schrieb Rick Macdougall:
Hi,
Hello,
And my hit rates are
For HAM
RANKRULE NAMECOUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
1BAYES_00 2281924.15 54.611.65 96.70
And SPAM
RANKRULE NAME
You can find a Bayes starter DB over at http://www.fsl.com/support/
I've used it here after our Bayes database got trashed
without having any false positive problems.
We use Bayes autolearn here, and after some good manual
training I've never seen it cause problems.
The key is to have a
Am Freitag, 30. Juni 2006 02:09 schrieb Rick Macdougall:
> Hi,
Hello,
> And my hit rates are
>
> For HAM
> RANKRULE NAMECOUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
> 1BAYES_00 2281924.15 54.611.65 96.70
>
> And SPAM
> RANKRULE NAMECOUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM
Hi,
Loren Wilton wrote:
You are into the land of opinions here, so you will get different answers.
Once you have the basic stuff I personally prefer to leave auto-learning
turned off and only had Bayes hams and spams that might be
misclassified, or ones where the bayes score isn't high e
From: "Rick Macdougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
I don't know if it's a good example of YMMV, I think both of our bayes
are operating at respectable levels given the data they have to deal
with. I may wish I could get better results but I really don't think
it's possible in the enviro
You are into the land of opinions here, so you will get different
answers.
1. The 200 ham and 200 spam is a hard
minimum. You can change this. But don't.
So you MUST give Bayes at least 200 each ham and spam before it will start
doing anything. What you give it for ham should hopefull
jdow wrote:
From: "Rick Macdougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
K! I bet you are running system wide Bayes for a very non-homogeneous
collection of people. I've appended my figures (not the best I have
seen but very good) below yours. Your BAYES_00 is better than mine
only if you do not consider the
From: "Rick Macdougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:45:07 +1000, "Leigh Sharpe"
So it looks like I have to reset my Bayes and re-train it. I want to do
it properly this time. I will be making sure I personally review every
message that our users put into th
200 is OK. 2000 is enough. Over the years from 2.43 forward my entire
spam and ham corpus contents amount to under 2000 each and Bayes is
running remarkably smoothly for me. I am "tempted" to enable automatic
learning to see what will happen. I'll take a snapshot of my Bayes
first, though. (The "g
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:45:07 +1000, "Leigh Sharpe"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So it looks like I have to reset my Bayes and re-train it. I want to do
it properly this time. I will be making sure I personally review every
message that our users put into the spam folder firs
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:45:07 +1000, "Leigh Sharpe"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So it looks like I have to reset my Bayes and re-train it. I want to do
>it properly this time. I will be making sure I personally review every
>message that our users put into the spam folder first, to make sure they
>
60 matches
Mail list logo
