On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:22:31 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> in doubt the amout of trained ham and spam should be near 50%,
> >
> > This is myth. What's important is to have enough of each, the actual
> > ratio is not important.
>
> true - but you don't have much to measure the "enough of each"
Am 23.02.2015 um 00:11 schrieb RW:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 21:36:38 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
And I'd suggest the same for non-spam, train duplicative ham even
if it happens to be similarly addressed to different users. More
data is (nearly) always better for bayesian learning systems
of course
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 21:36:38 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> > And I'd suggest the same for non-spam, train duplicative ham even
> > if it happens to be similarly addressed to different users. More
> > data is (nearly) always better for bayesian learning systems
>
> of course
With the caveat th
Quoting Kevin Miller :
When a fresh spam flood comes in, sometimes 50 or more of my users
will get hit with the same message - just a different user in the
To: line. When one trains the bayes database, is there a
significant difference between training on all 50+ or just grabbing
a few o
lto:da...@hireahit.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 11:30 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Quick question about training...
>
> On 2015-02-20 09:44, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > On 2/20/2015 12:35 PM, Kevin Miller wrote:
> >> When a fresh spam flood comes
Am 20.02.2015 um 21:29 schrieb Dave Warren:
On 2015-02-20 09:44, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 2/20/2015 12:35 PM, Kevin Miller wrote:
When a fresh spam flood comes in, sometimes 50 or more of my users
will get hit with the same message - just a different user in the To:
line. When one trains the ba
On 2015-02-20 09:44, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 2/20/2015 12:35 PM, Kevin Miller wrote:
When a fresh spam flood comes in, sometimes 50 or more of my users
will get hit with the same message - just a different user in the To:
line. When one trains the bayes database, is there a significant
differe
On 2/20/2015 12:35 PM, Kevin Miller wrote:
When a fresh spam flood comes in, sometimes 50 or more of my users will get hit
with the same message - just a different user in the To: line. When one trains
the bayes database, is there a significant difference between training on all
50+ or just g
Am 20.02.2015 um 18:35 schrieb Kevin Miller:
When a fresh spam flood comes in, sometimes 50 or more of my users will get hit
with the same message - just a different user in the To: line. When one trains
the bayes database, is there a significant difference between training on all
50+ or jus
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:06:41 +0200
Simon Loewenthal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Still lost with this so I created a simple rule in the local.cf
> (spamassasin --lint && restart done) :-
>
> describe MYTEST mytest
> body MYTEST /cdromland/
> score MYTEST 0.1
>
>
> I added this since word in to a file na
Hi,
Still lost with this so I created a simple rule in the local.cf
(spamassasin --lint && restart done) :-
describe MYTEST mytest
body MYTEST /cdromland/
score MYTEST 0.1
I added this since word in to a file named aaa.
cdromland
# spamc -y -R
> # spamc -y -R < 20120323.spam
> http://past
# spamc -y -R < 20120323.spam
http://pastebin.com/kVFn71B3
Full email with headers via spamassassin -t . Slightly redacted:
http://pastebin.com/HFmWfZa6
On 23/03/12 13:59, Banyan He wrote:
> 60.Mar 23 10:39:43.265 [28017] dbg: config: read file
> /etc/spamassassin/local.cf
> 61.Mar 23 10:39:43
Indeed I certainly can.
http://pastebin.com/c2an4irw
On 23/03/12 13:44, Banyan He wrote:
> Maybe you can share with us the debug output for the second thought in
> this case, Simon.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Banyan He
> Blog: http://www.rootong.com
> Email: ban...@rootong.com
>
>
> On
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 14:55, maillist wrote:
Content analysis details: (8.6 points, 7.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
2.4 SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL SPF: HELO does
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 14:55, maillist wrote:
> Content analysis details: (8.6 points, 7.0 required)
>
> pts rule name description
> --
> --
> 2.4 SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL SPF: HELO does not match SPF rec
Rick Macdougall wrote:
> Heh, with 20K high speed users we need to scan the outgoing mail for
> spam and viruses or else we get listed in spamcop daily. So that
> option is out the door.
Then you should definitely spam-scan mail between your users as well (minus the
RCVD_IN_*_DUL rules)
--
Mat
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Thanks, that's what I figured. I'll do some reading. I guess I'll
want to set our users as internal and the mail server as trusted but
I'll double check.
Nah, just add everything to your trusted_networks.
Hummm, not sure about that. I do
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Thanks, that's what I figured. I'll do some reading. I guess I'll want
to set our users as internal and the mail server as trusted but I'll
double check.
Nah, just add everything to your trusted_networks.
That will be fun for two full class /19's
At most 46 charac
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Is it possible to do anything about local users that are listed in RBL's
- Use SMTP auth. SA 3.0.2+ will detect SMTP auth tokens and extend the
trust boundary.
- Use POP-before-SMTP and the SA 3.0 or 3.1 POPAuth plugins available on
the Wik
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Is it possible to do anything about local users that are listed in
RBL's ?
Use SMTP AUTH, and bypass SpamAssassin checks on authenticated sessions?
Heh, with 20K high speed users we need to scan the outgoing mail for
spam and viruses or els
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Is it possible to do anything about local users that are listed in RBL's
- Use SMTP auth. SA 3.0.2+ will detect SMTP auth tokens and extend the
trust boundary.
- Use POP-before-SMTP and the SA 3.0 or 3.1 POPAuth plugins available on
the Wiki.
- If you control these
Matt Kettler wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to do anything about local users that are listed in RBL's
? The listing is correct but I don't really want mail sent to us from
our users to be marked as spam (I know it wouldn't have if the date on
the computer was set correctly b
Rick Macdougall wrote:
> Is it possible to do anything about local users that are listed in
> RBL's ?
Use SMTP AUTH, and bypass SpamAssassin checks on authenticated sessions?
> The listing is correct but I don't really want mail sent
> to us from our users to be marked as spam
You need to find
Rick Macdougall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to do anything about local users that are listed in RBL's
> ? The listing is correct but I don't really want mail sent to us from
> our users to be marked as spam (I know it wouldn't have if the date on
> the computer was set correctly but in this
24 matches
Mail list logo
