Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 22:38 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>
> To follow-up on this suggestion...
>
>
>> That said, why add code to sa-learn when spamassassin can already do
>> something even more complete. Try feeding the message "spamassassin -r
>> --add-to-blacklist
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 22:38 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
To follow-up on this suggestion...
> That said, why add code to sa-learn when spamassassin can already do
> something even more complete. Try feeding the message "spamassassin -r
> --add-to-blacklist".
It seems (looking at -D output) that
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 22:38 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> That said, why add code to sa-learn when spamassassin can already do
> something even more complete. Try feeding the message "spamassassin -r
> --add-to-blacklist".
Ahhh. I was mistakenly thinking that sa-learn == [ update-bayes
datab
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 18:35 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> ie: you
>> can't tell sa-learn a message is spam and have it apply that information
>> in any way to the AWL. I guess that's really what my point was, and I
>> expressed it poorly.
>>
>
> I guess as the O
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 18:35 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> ie: you
> can't tell sa-learn a message is spam and have it apply that information
> in any way to the AWL. I guess that's really what my point was, and I
> expressed it poorly.
I guess as the OP of this thread, my point was that why sho
mouss wrote:
>
>>> - is it enough to pass few messages? (in short, does "manual" training
>>> have more "weight" than automatic awl learning?)
>>>
>>>
>> There's no such thing as manual training of the AWL. Actually, there's
>> no such thing as "training" for it either.
>>
>> The AWL aver
Matt Kettler a écrit :
>> I am thinking about this case: Joe the spammer bombs you with mail that
>> is not detected as spam. he gets a negative awl.
> That statement implies that there's a "score" for the user in the AWL.
>
> The AWL score varies with what the current messages pre-awl score. The
"Brian J. Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
> sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
> that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam
> score up?
And also useful[1] for t
Matt Kettler wrote:
> If a spammer is using the same sending address over and over again,
> blacklist them entirely.
>
> That said, I've never seen a spammer re-use the same address twice.
Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen – only that you’re not on any
“narrowcast” lists (e.g. “Email 200,000 British
mouss wrote:
> Matt Kettler a écrit :
>
>> mouss wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Kettler a écrit :
>>>
>>>
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
> sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for t
Matt Kettler a écrit :
> mouss wrote:
>> Matt Kettler a écrit :
>>
>>> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>>
If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
that future uses of the AWL for that spam
mouss wrote:
> Matt Kettler a écrit :
>
>> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>
>>> If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
>>> sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
>>> that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam
>
Matt Kettler a écrit :
> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
>> sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
>> that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam
>> score up?
>>
>> Thots?
>>
>
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 17:38 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> Is Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SAGrey part of the stat SA set? Neither
> yum nor CPAN seem to be able to find it here... though that could
> easily be down to user error.
Google finds it quite easily. ;)
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassas
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:56:58 -0500, Jeff Mincy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> From: Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:48:57 -0500
>
> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
> > sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful
From: Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:48:57 -0500
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
> sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
> that future uses of the AWL for th
On Wed, December 3, 2008 05:48, Matt Kettler wrote:
> That said, I've never seen a spammer re-use the same address twice.
i have :-)
olso why spf / dkim whitelist is the way to go, let spammers try to
get whitelisted
microsoft got it wroung with "Block Sender" :)
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
> sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
> that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam
> score up?
>
> Thots?
>
If a spammer is using the same s
18 matches
Mail list logo
