On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, Jerry Pape wrote:
Oops, further investigation indicates that Bayes is "on"--thought the
default was "off" for my config. I would be inclined to turn it off as I have
no decent way of teaching it beyond mass-config into the future--please
advise.
Training is critical. If
Oops, further investigation indicates that Bayes is "on"--thought the
default was "off" for my config. I would be inclined to turn it off as I
have no decent way of teaching it beyond mass-config into the
future--please advise.
JP
On 10/17/10 10:37 PM, Jerry Pape wrote:
Wow, I am grateful f
Wow, I am grateful for the prompt answers, but I must say they have
confused me.
Bayes should not be on in my config and subsequent check of the GUI says
its not--this may be wrong.
Further, what are the "scoreset" indexes?
I don't use Bayes because all of my clients are POP mail and they a
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, John Hardin wrote:
There are four score sets to choose from based on what options you have
enabled. The above is for scoreset 2, no BAYES + net tests.
Crap. That should be "scoreset 1". Sorry.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, Jerry Pape wrote:
[Not sure if this is the right place to send this--please correct me if
I am in error]
This is the place.
Assessment of this header at http://www.futurequest.net/docs/SA/decode/
yields:
TestScore Description
BAYES_400.000 Bayesian spam
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 17:05 -0700, Jerry Pape wrote:
> At some time in the not too distant past, my otherwise reliable SA
> system has broken in an odd way.
>
> This example is characteristic of the problem:
Can't follow. It is broken, because SA itself reports something
different from an unrelat
On 10/17/2010 7:05 PM, Jerry Pape wrote:
[snip]
> x-spam-status reads: No, score=3.8 required=4.0
> tests=BAYES_40,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,
> HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RDNS_NONE,URIBL_BLACK
> autolearn=no version=3.2.5
>
> Assessment of this header at http://www.futurequ
All,
[Not sure if this is the right place to send this--please correct me if
I am in error]
At some time in the not too distant past, my otherwise reliable SA
system has broken in an odd way.
This example is characteristic of the problem:
Cheap Airline Tickets email received--clearly junk
Josie Walls wrote:
Hello All,
Can anyone provide insight into what this means and how to rectify it?:
2.9 TVD_SPACE_RATIO BODY: TVD_SPACE_RATIO
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/TVD_SPACE_RATIO
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rules/20_body_tests.cf?view=marku
Hello All,
Can anyone provide insight into what this means and how to rectify it?:
2.9 TVD_SPACE_RATIO BODY: TVD_SPACE_RATIO
Thanks so much for your help.
Kindest Regards,
Josie
Josie Walls
Senior Email Deliverability Manager
WhatCounts, Inc.
Business Email, RSS, Mobile,
On Jul 30, 2006, at 5:18 PM, jdow wrote:
(You DO review your spam mailbox before
tossing the spam, don't you?
Sort of... what I do (at home) is:
0) MIMEDefang rejects anything that scores >= 10. MIMEDefang also
rejects anything that doesn't have a PTR record, or has a PTR record
that does
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jul 30, 2006, at 4:37 PM, jdow wrote:
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jul 26, 2006, at 5:23 PM, jdow wrote:
I am a bit of a heretic in this group because I take the nasty step
of taking rules that are almost always right (one error per thous
On Jul 30, 2006, at 4:37 PM, jdow wrote:
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jul 26, 2006, at 5:23 PM, jdow wrote:
I am a bit of a heretic in this group because I take the nasty step
of taking rules that are almost always right (one error per thousand
or more hits) and make sure the sco
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jul 26, 2006, at 5:23 PM, jdow wrote:
I am a bit of a heretic in this group because I take the nasty step
of taking rules that are almost always right (one error per thousand
or more hits) and make sure the score on the rule is designed to
push the score
From: "Nix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] yowled:
My impression is that the perceptron tries to cluster scores NEAR 5.0
with as much spam as possible over 5.0 and as little ham as possible
over 5.0.
Well, it doesn't *try* to cluster, but since it'll keep tweaking
On Jul 26, 2006, at 5:23 PM, jdow wrote:
I am a bit of a heretic in this group because I take the nasty step
of taking rules that are almost always right (one error per thousand
or more hits) and make sure the score on the rule is designed to
push the score AWAY from 5.0 in the appropriate dire
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] yowled:
> My impression is that the perceptron tries to cluster scores NEAR 5.0
> with as much spam as possible over 5.0 and as little ham as possible
> over 5.0.
Well, it doesn't *try* to cluster, but since it'll keep tweaking until
as many FPs and FNs as po
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jul 26, 2006, at 9:07 AM, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 07:43:51AM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
When that score is developed, how is it decided that the scores have
settled? When a "95% of the spam in the corpus got ranked 5 or
higher"? 8
From: "Jim Maul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Chris Santerre wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:44 AM
> To: Chris Santerre
> Cc: Sietse van Zanen; SpamAssassin Users
> Subject: Re:
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jul 26, 2006, at 6:40 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:38 AM
> To: Sietse van Zanen
> Cc: SpamAssassin Users
> S
On Jul 26, 2006, at 9:33, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 09:25:49AM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
Hm. I have no such files in my rules directory. (I'm running 3.1.1)
Are you looking at the installed default rules directory (not called
"rules") or the rules directory in the distrib
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 09:25:49AM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
> Hm. I have no such files in my rules directory. (I'm running 3.1.1)
Are you looking at the installed default rules directory (not called
"rules") or the rules directory in the distribution/tarball (called
"rules")?
--
Randomly Generat
On Jul 26, 2006, at 9:07 AM, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 07:43:51AM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
When that score is developed, how is it decided that the scores have
settled? When a "95% of the spam in the corpus got ranked 5 or
higher"? 80%? 100%? That's the comparison I'm l
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 07:43:51AM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
> When that score is developed, how is it decided that the scores have
> settled? When a "95% of the spam in the corpus got ranked 5 or
> higher"? 80%? 100%? That's the comparison I'm looking for.
It's a learning system, so it's done
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:56:18AM -0400, Jim Maul wrote:
> Hurts more than it helps? Probably not. But it *does* cause weird
> things like BAYES_80 being scored higher than BAYES_95.
>
> body Bayesian spam probability is 80 to 95% BAYES_80 0 0 3.608 2.0
> body Bayesian spam probability i
Chris Santerre wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:44 AM
> To: Chris Santerre
> Cc: Sietse van Zanen; SpamAssassin Users
> Subject: Re: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage
>
>
>
Title: RE: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:44 AM
> To: Chris Santerre
> Cc: Sietse van Zanen; SpamAssassin Users
> Subject: Re: SA Score -> Confidence Perc
On Jul 26, 2006, at 6:40 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:38 AM
> To: Sietse van Zanen
> Cc: SpamAssassin Users
> Subject: Re: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage
>
>
score will be. And that is
> > independant of spam probability.
> >
> > You might be able to compare bayes probabilities with SA scores, but
> > automating it would be very, very difficult.
> >
> > From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Does anyone
-Sietse
From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 26-Jul-06 12:37
To: Sietse van Zanen
Cc: SpamAssassin Users
Subject: Re: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage
I can see how plugins and add-on rules all affect it, but certainly
they have some sort of base comparison t
Title: RE: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage
> -Original Message-
> From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:38 AM
> To: Sietse van Zanen
> Cc: SpamAssassin Users
> Subject: Re: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage
>
&g
icult.
-Sietse
From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 26-Jul-06 12:13
To: SpamAssassin Users
Subject: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage
Does anyone have a scale that compares the SA score to a "percent
likelihood that the message is spam&
automating
it would be very, very difficult.
-Sietse
From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 26-Jul-06 12:13
To: SpamAssassin Users
Subject: SA Score -> Confidence Percentage
Does anyone have a scale that compares the SA score to a "
Does anyone have a scale that compares the SA score to a "percent
likelihood that the message is spam"?
Something like "a score of 5 is a 75% chance than the message is spam".
But I don't want it just for a score of 5. What I'd like is for
scores of 1-10. A
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 1:45 PM
To: Johnson, S; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: SA Score
Are you using rewrite_header Subject SPAM(_SCORE_)
Per the upgrade docs?
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/spamassassin/branches/3
From: "Johnson, S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I recently upgraded from 2.5 to 3 and am attempting to use the _SCORE_
in the tag. However, when the tag comes back instead of replacing the
_SCORE_ with the actual score, it' just "***SPAM***(_SCORE). Any ideas
<<
At 02:16 PM 12/14/2004, Johnson, S wrote:
I recently upgraded from 2.5 to 3 and am attempting to use the _SCORE_ in
the tag. However, when the tag comes back instead of replacing the
_SCORE_ with the actual score, it' just "***SPAM***(_SCORE). Any ideas
why I'm seeing this?
Any chance you are
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: SA Score
I recently upgraded from 2.5 to 3 and am attempting to use the
_SCORE_ in the tag. However, when the tag comes back instead of
replacing the _SCORE_ with the actual score, it' just
"***SPAM
I recently upgraded from 2.5 to 3 and am attempting to use
the _SCORE_ in the tag.
However, when the tag comes back instead of replacing the _SCORE_ with the actual score, it’
just “***SPAM***(_SCORE). Any ideas why I’m seeing this?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Confidential
Yassen Damyanov wrote:
> On Friday 10 December 2004 18:21, Kris Deugau wrote:
> > I've
> > had trouble in the past with Bayes learning very low-scoring spam
> > as ham - so I lowered the autolearn-as-ham threshold to -0.1.
> I came to a conclusion that some real spams got scored very low and
> poi
This should help explain the rules:
http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests.html
Steve
>Thanks a LOT to all who posted back (what a supportive community!
>This was my first post) especially to Kris.
>
>On Friday 10 December 2004 18:21, Kris Deugau wrote:
>> Yassen Damyanov wrote:
>> >
>> > debug: r
Thanks a LOT to all who posted back (what a supportive community!
This was my first post) especially to Kris.
On Friday 10 December 2004 18:21, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Yassen Damyanov wrote:
> >
> > debug: running meta tests; score so far=5.53
> > debug: auto-learn? ham=0.2, spam=8, body-hits=4.166,
>
>
> Yassen Damyanov wrote:
> >
> > Hi SA User List,
> >
> > Here's my case: postfix + amavisd-new + SpamAssassin 2.64
> working on
> > a Gentoo Linux box, serving as a mail server for serveral virtual
> > domains.
> >
> > Some SpamAssassin details: Bayes learning activated
> recently, b
Yassen Damyanov wrote:
>
> Hi SA User List,
>
> Here's my case: postfix + amavisd-new + SpamAssassin 2.64
> working on a Gentoo Linux box, serving as a mail server for
> serveral virtual domains.
>
> Some SpamAssassin details: Bayes learning activated recently,
> based on about 300 spam mails a
At 04:47 PM 12/10/2004 +0200, Yassen Damyanov wrote:
debug: Score set 2 chosen.
debug: auto-learn? no: inside auto-learn thresholds
debug: is spam? score=0.629 required=6.8
tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_12_24,SARE_ADULT2,SARE_OBFUPORNO
Then the message is tagged "X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6".
This
debug: is spam? score=0.629 required=6.8
tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_12_24,SARE_ADULT2,SARE_OBFUPORNO
Then the message is tagged "X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6".
This is an obvious adult site adv. and SARE rules do a good job. But why the
score
is lowered at the end?
BAYES_00. That says Bayes is
On Friday 10 December 2004 14:47, Yassen Damyanov might have typed:
> debug: auto-learn? no: inside auto-learn thresholds
> debug: is spam? score=0.629 required=6.8 tests=BAYES_00,
Your Bayes DB for the amavis install reckoned the mail was -4.9 points.
Hi SA User List,
Here's my case: postfix + amavisd-new + SpamAssassin 2.64
working on a Gentoo Linux box, serving as a mail server for
serveral virtual domains.
Some SpamAssassin details: Bayes learning activated recently,
based on about 300 spam mails and 200 ham mails, which accumulate
in IMAP
48 matches
Mail list logo
