26.09.2014, 02:53, Amir Caspi kirjoitti:
> As a result, I've got plenty of "great" fresh spam to feed the filter. I've
> also got plenty of great ham.
Could you take a share in MassChecks? Currently SpamAssassin masschecks
seem to need more fresh spam and ham. Would be great to have you within
th
I'm not sure wiping BAYES is needed, unless training does not
On 26.09.14 09:11, John Hardin wrote:
He has autolearn running. Unless he has copies of the spams that were
learned as ham, there's no way to totally undo that short of wipe and
start over from scratch.
depends on how much of the
Am 26.09.2014 um 18:19 schrieb John Hardin:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> frankly the biggest problem is the large amount of idiots hit
>> a "spam" button whenever they can to stop receive some sort of
>> mail - i had that even in my own family "can't you block that?"
>> follow
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
frankly the biggest problem is the large amount of idiots hit
a "spam" button whenever they can to stop receive some sort of
mail - i had that even in my own family "can't you block that?"
followed by "yes" after asking "have you subscribed there?"
gues
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 25.09.14 07:51, John Hardin wrote:
You are probably going to have to wipe and retrain your bayes database from
scratch using known-good (i.e. hand classified) corpora. I also suggest
turning off autolearn.
I'm not sure wiping BAYES is nee
Am 26.09.2014 um 17:57 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
> On 25.09.14 16:07, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> that's why BAYES_99 together with score BAYES_999 0.5 since
>> it happens only very rare for legit mail and that ones
>> have mostly whitelists, SPF, DKIM to keep the result below 8
>>
>> score BAYE
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
your own caching DNS server? does your mail server use it?
You seem to have too much mail then.
Be careful with terminology there. It's not whether it's caching, it's
whether it forwards lookups to an upstream DNS server. You can have a
cach
On 25.09.14 07:51, John Hardin wrote:
You are probably going to have to wipe and retrain your bayes
database from scratch using known-good (i.e. hand classified)
corpora. I also suggest turning off autolearn.
I'm not sure wiping BAYES is needed, unless training does not
You *did* keep your
On 25.09.14 16:07, Reindl Harald wrote:
that's why BAYES_99 together with score BAYES_999 0.5 since
it happens only very rare for legit mail and that ones
have mostly whitelists, SPF, DKIM to keep the result below 8
score BAYES_00 -2.5
score BAYES_05 -0.7
score BAYES_20 -0.06
score BAYES_40 -0.0
thoughts? you changed a score and SA did what you told it to.
On 25.09.14 11:06, Deeztek Support wrote:
I changed it as per the suggestion of Matus UHLAR - fantomas
no. I have wondered why you have chnged it to sero, when SA rules have
negative values.
I apparently forgot to note that you
On 9/25/2014 6:31 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> I recommend tou to clear score for RP_MATCHES_RCVD... apparently too much
> FNs as you can see here
On 09/25/2014 03:26 PM, Deeztek Support wrote:
How would I go about clearning out the RP_MATCHES_RCVD score?
On 25.09.14 15:38, Axb wrote:
--As of September 25, 2014 11:13:16 AM -0400, Deeztek Support is alleged to
have said:
You *did* keep your initial Bayes training corpora, right?
I have an account that I have used to sign up for everything under the
sun over the past 10 years. It's a goldmine for spam. I figured I use
that
On Sep 25, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Axb wrote:
> imo, fresh spam is the best spam.
I've got plenty...
> Nowadays, we tend to reejct most good fodder with all kinds of methods at
> SMTP level and what's left is often hardly enough to keep a bayes DB well fed.
In my case, spam is quarantined but not
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Deeztek Support wrote:
On 9/25/2014 1:25 PM, John Hardin wrote:.
While your Postfix may be doing DNS blocklist checks on the sending MTA,
I sincerely doubt that Postfix is parsing message bodies to pull out URI
domains and checking them. That's what URIBL is.
Is there
Am 25.09.2014 um 19:44 schrieb Deeztek Support:
> On 9/25/2014 1:25 PM, John Hardin wrote:.
>>
>> While your Postfix may be doing DNS blocklist checks on the sending MTA,
>> I sincerely doubt that Postfix is parsing message bodies to pull out URI
>> domains and checking them. That's what URIBL is
On 9/25/2014 1:25 PM, John Hardin wrote:.
>
> While your Postfix may be doing DNS blocklist checks on the sending MTA,
> I sincerely doubt that Postfix is parsing message bodies to pull out URI
> domains and checking them. That's what URIBL is.
Is there a place to configure the URIBLs that SA use
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:51 AM, John Hardin wrote:
You *did* keep your initial Bayes training corpora, right?
Does it matter if you keep the initial corpora, or just that you train on known corpora,
even if they are "fluid?"
The "properly classified" p
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Deeztek Support wrote:
as already suggested by John Hardin, fix URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001
"Also: URIBL_BLOCKED - you really want to set up a local recursive
(non-forwarding) DNS server for SA so that your URIBL lookups will work,
that might help a lot. "
I can certainly try
On 09/25/2014 05:24 PM, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:51 AM, John Hardin wrote:
You *did* keep your initial Bayes training corpora, right?
Does it matter if you keep the initial corpora, or just that you train on known corpora,
even if they are "fluid?"
imo, fresh spam is the be
Am 25.09.2014 um 17:24 schrieb Amir Caspi:
> On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:51 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>>
>> You *did* keep your initial Bayes training corpora, right?
>
> Does it matter if you keep the initial corpora, or just that you train on
> known corpora, even if they are "fluid?"
yes because you
On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:51 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> You *did* keep your initial Bayes training corpora, right?
Does it matter if you keep the initial corpora, or just that you train on known
corpora, even if they are "fluid?"
--- Amir
thumbed via iPhone
Am 25.09.2014 um 17:06 schrieb Deeztek Support:
> I can certainly try that, however seeing that I'm implementing
> block lists on the postfix level, wouldn't that double the lookups?
first: if postscreen/postfix reject based on RBL score
the message don't make it to SA at all and in case of
a pro
On 09/25/2014 05:06 PM, Deeztek Support wrote:
as already suggested by John Hardin, fix URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001
"Also: URIBL_BLOCKED - you really want to set up a local recursive
(non-forwarding) DNS server for SA so that your URIBL lookups will work,
that might help a lot. "
I can certainly try
On 9/25/2014 10:51 AM, John Hardin wrote:
If BAYES_00 hits on a spam, that indicates training issues.
I understand.
Since you're reporting problems with autolearn, that's not at all
surprising. Your bayes database is probably polluted.
You are probably going to have to wipe and retrain yo
thoughts? you changed a score and SA did what you told it to.
I changed it as per the suggestion of Matus UHLAR - fantomas
What are you trying to achieve (other than using the SA list as your
changes log)
Is that a trick question? I'm trying to ensure that spam messages are
indeed tagge
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Deeztek Support wrote:
On 9/25/2014 9:26 AM, Deeztek Support wrote:
On 9/25/2014 6:31 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 24.09.14 14:03, Deeztek Support wrote:
> > score BAYES_000.000
>
> why 0? current is -1.5 without and -1.9 with network checks...
Do you
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Axb wrote:
On 09/25/2014 03:26 PM, Deeztek Support wrote:
On 9/25/2014 6:31 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 24.09.14 14:03, Deeztek Support wrote:
> > score BAYES_000.000
>
> why 0? current is -1.5 without and -1.9 with network checks...
Do you mean that
On 09/25/2014 04:02 PM, Deeztek Support wrote:
I went ahead and set BAYES_00 to -1.9 and I just received a spam message
with these headers:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.204 tagged_above=-999 required=0.6
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DCC_CHECK=1.1, FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS=0.738,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0
Am 25.09.2014 um 16:02 schrieb Deeztek Support:
> On 9/25/2014 9:26 AM, Deeztek Support wrote:
>> On 9/25/2014 6:31 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> > On 24.09.14 14:03, Deeztek Support wrote:
>> >> score BAYES_000.000
>> >
>> > why 0? current is -1.5 without and -1.9 with network chec
On 9/25/2014 9:26 AM, Deeztek Support wrote:
On 9/25/2014 6:31 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 24.09.14 14:03, Deeztek Support wrote:
>> score BAYES_000.000
>
> why 0? current is -1.5 without and -1.9 with network checks...
Do you mean that the default is supposed to be -1.5 witho
On 09/25/2014 03:26 PM, Deeztek Support wrote:
On 9/25/2014 6:31 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 24.09.14 14:03, Deeztek Support wrote:
>> score BAYES_000.000
>
> why 0? current is -1.5 without and -1.9 with network checks...
Do you mean that the default is supposed to be -1.5 wit
On 9/25/2014 6:31 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 24.09.14 14:03, Deeztek Support wrote:
>> score BAYES_000.000
>
> why 0? current is -1.5 without and -1.9 with network checks...
Do you mean that the default is supposed to be -1.5 without networks
tests and -1.9 with network tests?
On 24.09.14 14:03, Deeztek Support wrote:
score BAYES_000.000
why 0? current is -1.5 without and -1.9 with network checks...
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.257 tagged_above=-999 required=0.6
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.653, SPF_
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014, Deeztek Support wrote:
Hello, I'm using the following spamassassin:
SpamAssassin version 3.3.2
running on Perl version 5.10.1
On Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. I'm having a strange problem with messages being
autolearned as ham even though they don't score low enough. Here's my
loc
Hello, I'm using the following spamassassin:
SpamAssassin version 3.3.2
running on Perl version 5.10.1
On Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. I'm having a strange problem with messages being
autolearned as ham even though they don't score low enough. Here's my
local.cf config:
use_bayes 1
use_bayes_rules 1
35 matches
Mail list logo
