Re: more spam is getting through :-(

> On 20 Mar 2019, at 20:04, James wrote: > > On 2019-03-18 7:40 p.m., @lbutlr wrote: >>> On 18 Mar 2019, at 13:59, James wrote: >>> >>> The documentation says to use your inbox. :-) >> It does not. > > The example shows using your inbox. The example is an example. The documentation says to

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On 2019-03-20 12:07 p.m., Dave Warren wrote: What is the result when you train inbound spam as ham first, then as spam? As I understand it, forgetting is not required, SpamAssassin will handle this automatically. So as long as users move spam into the spam training folder (not deleting spam di

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On 2019-03-18 7:40 p.m., @lbutlr wrote: On 18 Mar 2019, at 13:59, James wrote: The documentation says to use your inbox. :-) It does not. The example shows using your inbox. if possible. This will make it more accurate for your incoming mail. Do this using the "sa-learn" tools, like s

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On 2019-03-18 23:39, Duane Hill wrote: Hello Dave, Tuesday, March 19, 2019, 12:11:40 AM, you wrote: *> On 2019-03-18 17:40, @lbutlr wrote: On 18 Mar 2019, at 13:59, James <*bjloc...@lockie.ca *> wrote: On 2019-03-17 5:43 p.m., @lbutlr wrote: On 17 Mar 2019, at

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On Mon, 2019-03-18 at 23:11 -0600, Dave Warren wrote: > I've been pondering this, what happens when you learn a message as > non-spam and then ham a few minutes later? (I assume you meant train as non-spam, then retrain as spam, or vice- versa.) > As I understand it you do not need to explicitl

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

Hello Dave, Tuesday, March 19, 2019, 12:11:40 AM, you wrote: > On 2019-03-18 17:40, @lbutlr wrote: >>> On 18 Mar 2019, at 13:59, James wrote: >>> On 2019-03-17 5:43 p.m., @lbutlr wrote: On 17 Mar 2019, at 15:03, James wrote: > I run sa-learn --ham on my inboxes. You inboxes lik

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On 2019-03-18 17:40, @lbutlr wrote: On 18 Mar 2019, at 13:59, James wrote: On 2019-03-17 5:43 p.m., @lbutlr wrote: On 17 Mar 2019, at 15:03, James wrote: I run sa-learn --ham on my inboxes. You inboxes likely contain spam messages that haven't been caught, so training on inbox will pois

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

> On 18 Mar 2019, at 13:59, James wrote: > > On 2019-03-17 5:43 p.m., @lbutlr wrote: >> On 17 Mar 2019, at 15:03, James wrote: >>> I run sa-learn --ham on my inboxes. >> You inboxes likely contain spam messages that haven't been caught, so >> training on inbox will poison your bayes in favor

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

John Capo skrev den 2019-03-18 20:30: John Received: from beta.mxes.net (beta.mxes.net [205.237.207.247]) by beta.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 138833AE9F; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 15:30:08 -0400 (EDT) are this really a secure problem ? password over no tls :/

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On 2019-03-17 5:43 p.m., @lbutlr wrote: On 17 Mar 2019, at 15:03, James wrote: I run sa-learn --ham on my inboxes. You inboxes likely contain spam messages that haven't been caught, so training on inbox will poison your bayes in favor of more spam. Unless your inbox is perfect (entirely dev

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 23:21:56 -0400 Bill Cole wrote: > The big blindspots of the automated rule QA and rescoring system is > that it can't account for the effects of ... and Bayes, If it didn't account for the effects of Bayes there wouldn't be any point in separate Bayes score sets. Hopefully

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On Sun, March 17, 2019 22:57, James wrote: > On 2019-03-17 5:46 p.m., John Capo wrote: > >> On Sun, March 17, 2019 17:03, James wrote: >> >>> I've been getting a lot of spam so I'm thinking of lowering the >>> "required" number. >>> >>> >>> >>> About 50 % spam gets a 4.4 so my required=4.5 is a tin

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On 18 Mar 2019, at 0:45, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 17 Mar 2019, James wrote: On 2019-03-17 5:46 p.m., John Capo wrote: On Sun, March 17, 2019 17:03, James wrote: What is the Bayes score for the missed spam? This is from a missed spam. How do I see the bayes score? X-Spam-Checker-Version:

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019, at 22:45, John Hardin wrote: > On Sun, 17 Mar 2019, James wrote: > > $ sudo sa-learn --dump magic > > 0.000 04665448 0 non-token data: nspam > > 0.000 0 51031938 0 non-token data: nham > > I'd generally expect those numbers to be so

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 03:43:14PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote: > > Sure. Grep them into your user_prefs file with whitelist_from. > > grep From: to get all the Drom lines, then put hose > into user_refs in the form > > whitelist_from > > This is probably a spectacular bad idea? It will also white

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019, James wrote: On 2019-03-17 5:46 p.m., John Capo wrote: On Sun, March 17, 2019 17:03, James wrote: What is the Bayes score for the missed spam? This is from a missed spam. How do I see the bayes score? X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) X-Spam-Status

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On 17 Mar 2019, at 17:03, James wrote: I've been getting a lot of spam so I'm thinking of lowering the "required" number. About 50 % spam gets a 4.4 so my required=4.5 is a tiny bit high. Be careful. The default scores are set based on an analysis of scored ham and spam corpora with a targe

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On 2019-03-17 5:46 p.m., John Capo wrote: On Sun, March 17, 2019 17:03, James wrote: I've been getting a lot of spam so I'm thinking of lowering the "required" number. About 50 % spam gets a 4.4 so my required=4.5 is a tiny bit high. I run an IMAP server with my own spamassassin. I have over

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On 2019-03-17 5:45 p.m., John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 17 Mar 2019, James wrote: I've been getting a lot of spam so I'm thinking of lowering the "required" number. About 50 % spam gets a 4.4 so my required=4.5 is a tiny bit high. I run sa-learn --ham on my inboxes. Are you also capturing a sp

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On 3/17/19 4:03 PM, James wrote: > I've been getting a lot of spam so I'm thinking of lowering the > "required" number. > > About 50 % spam gets a 4.4 so my required=4.5 is a tiny bit high. > > I run sa-learn --ham on my inboxes. > Is there a way to whitelist all the email addresses in my inboxe

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On Sun, March 17, 2019 17:03, James wrote: > I've been getting a lot of spam so I'm thinking of lowering the > "required" number. > > > About 50 % spam gets a 4.4 so my required=4.5 is a tiny bit high. What is the Bayes score for the missed spam? > I run sa-learn --ham on my inboxes. Unless you

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019, James wrote: I've been getting a lot of spam so I'm thinking of lowering the "required" number. About 50 % spam gets a 4.4 so my required=4.5 is a tiny bit high. I run sa-learn --ham on my inboxes. Are you also capturing a spam corpus and learning from that? Bayes requ

Re: more spam is getting through :-(

On 17 Mar 2019, at 15:03, James wrote: > I've been getting a lot of spam so I'm thinking of lowering the "required" > number. This is not the way to limit spam, it simply raises the false-positive. > About 50 % spam gets a 4.4 so my required=4.5 is a tiny bit high. I would say that your requir