On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
The downside is that this is not "confirmed ham" and "confirmed spam".
(nod) Exactly. And that is what is needed to do a masscheck...
I wonder how much companies would pay for a part time SpamAssassin
honcho who can be trusted (bonded?) and can write SARE-ish
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
I'm just a touch naive here; but, it seems to me it should be possible,
somehow, to build running spamd daemons, one with the regular rules
and one with the mass check rules.
There's nothing special about "masscheck rules". Masscheck is just running
the curren
From: "Charles Gregory"
Sent: Sunday, 2009/December/20 06:20
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
More unfortunately, privacy concerns prevent me from building a useful
corpus of ham. Sigh
But otherwise such a good idea
Can you not trust yourself to use your own ham? You d
On 12/20/2009 09:20 AM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
More unfortunately, privacy concerns prevent me from building a useful
corpus of ham. Sigh
But otherwise such a good idea
Can you not trust yourself to use your own ham? You don't need to
provi
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
More unfortunately, privacy concerns prevent me from building a useful
corpus of ham. Sigh
But otherwise such a good idea
Can you not trust yourself to use your own ham? You don't need to
provide us with your mail. You can scan your own ma
On 19/12/2009 5:51 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
>> Why wait, when you do relatively simple things to help make it happen?
>> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
>> We can more frequently update rules if more people participate in the
>> nig
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
Why wait, when you do relatively simple things to help make it happen?
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
We can more frequently update rules if more people participate in the
nightly masschecks. The current documentation is a bit of a
On 18/12/2009 5:13 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
> On 12/18/2009 04:56 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
>>> We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated -
>>> i.e., if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated
>>> masschecks, it would
On 12/18/2009 04:56 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated -
i.e., if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated
masschecks, it would be automatically scored and published via sa-update.
Mu
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
Perhaps you meant CHAIR and keyboard? ;)
I should have guessed you've managed to short circuit the path
through your brain.
{O,o} <-- Grinning, ducking, and running REAL fast that way>
(Thanks for the straight line. {^_-})
(Thinks twice about it)
Ou
From: "Charles Gregory"
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 13:49
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
Still no changes through the sa-update channel.
Is there a time delay in the masscheck results being applied?
Yes, there is, Mr. Gregory. It exists between your m
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated - i.e.,
if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated masschecks,
it would be automatically scored and published via sa-update.
Music to my ears. I will wait (semi-)patiently. T
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
Still no changes through the sa-update channel.
Is there a time delay in the masscheck results being applied?
Yes, there is, Mr. Gregory. It exists between your monitor and your
keyboard.
There is a one inch gap between those
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
I recognize, from the existence of such sites as 'rules du jour' that it
has long been a practice for SA to release 'core' rule updates very
infrequently. But with respect, I question whether that is still a good
practice, particularly when an 'issue
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, LuKreme wrote:
It's already been stayed no changes to 3.2.5 will be made until 3.3 is
done, hasn't it?
Well, at this point, I respectfully bow, and take a step back, so as not
to sound too demanding of our great volunteers (smile), but I believe
in another of my posts I p
From: "Charles Gregory"
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 06:56
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
It is a good thing this issue was raised. It led to appropriate mass
check runs. I expect that will lead to saner scoring within the SA
framework. If not and it bites me, THEN I'll raise the issue ag
On Dec 18, 2009, at 7:56, Charles Gregory wrote:
Still no changes through the sa-update channel.
Is there a time delay in the masscheck results being applied?
It's already been stayed no changes to 3.2.5 will be made until 3.3 is
done, hasn't it?
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
It is a good thing this issue was raised. It led to appropriate mass
check runs. I expect that will lead to saner scoring within the SA
framework. If not and it bites me, THEN I'll raise the issue again.
Does that
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
It is a good thing this issue was raised. It led to appropriate mass
check runs. I expect that will lead to saner scoring within the SA
framework. If not and it bites me, THEN I'll raise the issue again.
Does that seem fair?
50_scores.cf:score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_
From: "J.D. Falk"
Sent: Thursday, 2009/December/17 11:21
On Dec 16, 2009, at 8:35 AM, LuKreme wrote:
The fact is I *AM* their customer. The people writing them checks are not,
they're just their funders. Whitelist companies ha to convince admins to
use their list. The only way to do that is
On Dec 16, 2009, at 8:35 AM, LuKreme wrote:
> The fact is I *AM* their customer. The people writing them checks are not,
> they're just their funders. Whitelist companies ha to convince admins to use
> their list. The only way to do that is to have really really really high
> quality lists that
On 16-Dec-2009, at 08:03, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Res wrote:
>>
>> no whitelist should ever become default part of SA
>>
>> the day it is, is the day I look elsewhere.
>
> Why shouldn't white lists become part of SA? Blacklists are part of SA. My
> hostkarma whitelists are one of the things that k
22 matches
Mail list logo
