Thanks Reindl, David, Martin & Joe for replying!
Reindl:
> 100 each at minimum - you only trained 23 spam samples but 1729 ham
> which is a bad balance and you would not want bayes kick in with such
> a bad database - how do you imagine a statistic analyse based on 23
> samples with a magnitude m
>From: Reindl Harald
>Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 6:08 AM
>To: David Jones; SpamAssassin Users ML
>Subject: Re: SpamAssassin score
>Am 20.03.2017 um 11:52 schrieb David Jones:
>>> From: Bernard
>>> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 5:37 AM
>>> To: SpamAssas
On 3/20/2017 6:37 AM, Bernard wrote:
Thanks for that information.
After ~1750 messages having been digested, still no improvement:
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 23 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 1729
On Mon, 2017-03-20 at 11:12 +0100, Bernard wrote:
> Am I missing something?
>
I think so. Bayes cannot have its spamminess score changed by a single
message, since its results would be very unstable if this was possible.
There is also a strong a clue that this is designed behavior when you
>From: Bernard
>Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 5:37 AM
>To: SpamAssassin Users ML
>Subject: Re: SpamAssassin score
>Thanks for that information.
>After ~1750 messages having been digested, still no improvement:
>0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: ba
Thanks for that information.
After ~1750 messages having been digested, still no improvement:
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 23 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 1729 0 non-token data: nham
0.000
Hello,
Using SpamAssassin, I am trying to make it learn 'bad' messages.
Experimenting with the learning process, I do not seem to be able to
reach a successful outcome:
$ spamc --username=debian-spamd --socket=/run/spamd/spamd.sock
--learntype=spam < spamassassin/junktestmail
Message was already
eature that is accessible
>>>>>>> via cPanel – see screenshot below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In view of the fact that some of my domains are increasingly
>>>>>>> inundated with spam, I would like to reduce the SpamAssassin sc
On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 07:32 +, Herbert Eppel wrote:
> The spam overload problem mainly arises at times when I read mail on my
> smartphone, in which case I don't have the additional Thunderbird spam
> filtering available, and my QiQ mailbox tends to be swamped with spam,
> which is why I wan
inundated with spam, I would like to reduce the SpamAssassin score
from the default value of 5 to a lower value, in order to make
SpamAssassin more 'aggressive'. However, I don't really want to
enable Spam Auto-Delete because I want to be able to check the
On 15.12.2014 21:04 UK Time, LuKreme wrote:
On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Herbert Eppel wrote:
In view of the fact that some of my domains are increasingly inundated with
spam, I would like to reduce the SpamAssassin score from the default value of 5
to a lower value, in order to make
On 15.12.2014 20:51 UK Time, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 18:20 +, Herbert Eppel wrote:
Thanks for your reply, but I'm afraid as an ordinary SA user with
limited knowledge of these matters I have, quite frankly, no idea what
you are talking about.
We may be able to offer m
reduce
the SpamAssassin score from the default value of 5 to a
lower value, in order to make SpamAssassin more
'aggressive'. However, I don't really want to enable Spam
Auto-Delete because I want to be able to check the spam
folder for false positives, but apparently there is no way
to cha
QiQ.co.uk for web hosting and associated e-mail services.
QiQ offer SpamAssassin as an integrated feature that is accessible
via cPanel – see screenshot below.
In view of the fact that some of my domains are increasingly
inundated with spam, I would like to reduce the SpamAssassin score
from the default
On 15.12.2014 18:38 UK Time, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 15.12.2014 um 19:20 schrieb Herbert Eppel:
On 15.12.2014 18:02 UK Time, Reindl Harald wrote:
besides that using RBL scoring and wise filters for dynamic PTRs and
invalid HELO names *before* SA on the MTA level should reject most spam
withou
On 15.12.2014 23:40, Axb wrote:
> On 12/15/2014 10:04 PM, LuKreme wrote:
>> The best way is to train babes
>
> now THAT is a challenge...
>
> What do you feed them during the process?
> diamonds? an appt in the Burj Khalifa? a Veneno Roadster?
>
>
>
I know that this adds just the noise but it shou
On 12/15/2014 10:04 PM, LuKreme wrote:
The best way is to train babes
now THAT is a challenge...
What do you feed them during the process?
diamonds? an appt in the Burj Khalifa? a Veneno Roadster?
On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Herbert Eppel wrote:
> In view of the fact that some of my domains are increasingly inundated with
> spam, I would like to reduce the SpamAssassin score from the default value of
> 5 to a lower value, in order to make SpamAssassin more 'aggressive
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 18:20 +, Herbert Eppel wrote:
> Thanks for your reply, but I'm afraid as an ordinary SA user with
> limited knowledge of these matters I have, quite frankly, no idea what
> you are talking about.
>
We may be able to offer more relevant help if we understood how your
ma
view of the fact that some of my domains are
>>>>> increasingly inundated with spam, I would like to reduce
>>>>> the SpamAssassin score from the default value of 5 to a
>>>>> lower value, in order to make SpamAssassin more
>>>>> 'aggr
I use QiQ.co.uk for web hosting and associated e-mail services.
>>>>> QiQ offer SpamAssassin as an integrated feature that is accessible
>>>>> via cPanel – see screenshot below.
>>>>>
>>>>> In view of the fact that some of my domains are increa
Am 15.12.2014 um 19:20 schrieb Herbert Eppel:
On 15.12.2014 18:02 UK Time, Reindl Harald wrote:
besides that using RBL scoring and wise filters for dynamic PTRs and
invalid HELO names *before* SA on the MTA level should reject most spam
without false positives
3 months:
* 25 delivered ha
screenshot below.
In view of the fact that some of my domains are increasingly inundated
with spam, I would like to reduce the SpamAssassin score from the
default value of 5 to a lower value, in order to make SpamAssassin
more 'aggressive'. However, I don't really want to enable Spam
Auto-D
some of my domains are increasingly
inundated with spam, I would like to reduce the SpamAssassin
score from the default value of 5 to a lower value, in order
to make SpamAssassin more 'aggressive'. However, I don't
really want to enable S
domains are increasingly inundated
with spam, I would like to reduce the SpamAssassin score from the
default value of 5 to a lower value, in order to make SpamAssassin
more 'aggressive'. However, I don't really want to enable Spam
Auto-Delete because I want to be able to check the spam f
screenshot below.
In view of the fact that some of my domains are increasingly
inundated with spam, I would like to reduce the SpamAssassin score
from the default value of 5 to a lower value, in order to make
SpamAssassin more 'aggressive'. However, I don't really want to
enable S
, I would like to reduce the SpamAssassin score from the
default value of 5 to a lower value, in order to make SpamAssassin
more 'aggressive'. However, I don't really want to enable Spam
Auto-Delete because I want to be able to check the spam folder for
false positives, but appa
reduce the SpamAssassin score
from the default value of 5 to a lower value, in order to make
SpamAssassin more 'aggressive'. However, I don't really want to
enable Spam Auto-Delete because I want to be able to check the spam
folder for false positives, but apparently the
yOn Mon, 12 Sep 2011, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Thomas Grossmann wrote:
Came across these in one of my SpamAssassin reports... Can someone please
help me with what they mean exactly so that I can try to pinpoint what is
triggering this.
Please do not reply to an existing th
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Thomas Grossmann wrote:
Came across these in one of my SpamAssassin reports... Can someone please
help me with what they mean exactly so that I can try to pinpoint what is
triggering this.
Please do not reply to an existing thread and then completely change the
topic lik
On 9/12/2011 12:36 PM, Thomas Grossmann wrote:
> Came across these in one of my SpamAssassin reports... Can someone
> please help me with what they mean exactly so that I can try to
> pinpoint what is triggering this.
>
> Thanks!
>
> 5.0 CT_MAILBOX_QUOTA Fake Mailbox Quota Phish
>
> 8.0 CT_QUOTA_P
Came across these in one of my SpamAssassin reports... Can someone please
help me with what they mean exactly so that I can try to pinpoint what is
triggering this.
Thanks!
5.0 CT_MAILBOX_QUOTA Fake Mailbox Quota Phish
8.0 CT_QUOTA_PHISH Quota Phishing
Kind Regards,
Tom
On Friday 17 October 2008, Chris wrote:
>On Friday 17 October 2008 7:24 pm, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> >Today, it indicates yahoo.com.
>>
>> Which equates to the same thing. I did have a few addresses of known spam
>> emitters in my procmailrc, but found I had to remove one of those in spite
>> of it
On Friday 17 October 2008 7:24 pm, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >Today, it indicates yahoo.com.
>
> Which equates to the same thing. I did have a few addresses of known spam
> emitters in my procmailrc, but found I had to remove one of those in spite
> of it being responsible for about 200 spams a day.
On Friday 17 October 2008, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>On Fri, October 17, 2008 17:49, Randy wrote:
>> Is this really necessary for yahoo.com generated e-mail?
>
>olso what i ask myself
>
>> 0.2 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE RBL: Envelope sender in abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
>> 1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS RBL: Envelope sen
On Friday 17 October 2008, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>> Is this really necessary for yahoo.com generated e-mail?
>>
>> 0.2 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE RBL: Envelope sender in abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
>> 1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS RBL: Envelope sender in whois.rfc-ignorant.org
>> 1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST RBL: Envelope
On Fri, October 17, 2008 17:49, Randy wrote:
> Is this really necessary for yahoo.com generated e-mail?
olso what i ask myself
> 0.2 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE RBL: Envelope sender in abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
> 1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS RBL: Envelope sender in whois.rfc-ignorant.org
> 1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST R
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Is this really necessary for yahoo.com generated e-mail?
0.2 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE RBL: Envelope sender in abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS RBL: Envelope sender in whois.rfc-ignorant.org
1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST RBL: Envelope sender in postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
> Is this really necessary for yahoo.com generated e-mail?
>
> 0.2 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE RBL: Envelope sender in abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
> 1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS RBL: Envelope sender in whois.rfc-ignorant.org
> 1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST RBL: Envelope sender in postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
>
Run sa-update
Is this really necessary for yahoo.com generated e-mail?
0.2 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE RBL: Envelope sender in abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS RBL: Envelope sender in whois.rfc-ignorant.org
1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST RBL: Envelope sender in postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
RCR
for the record now tested !!
i kicked out te and the coouting is working
sorry to have you spamed :)
VERBOSE=ON
# setting the level
#trash
TLVL="-20"
#quarantine
QLVL="-4"
#maybe spam
MLVL="-2"
SL="0"
# counting stars
:0
* H ?? ()^X-Spam-Level: \/[*]+
{ SPAMLEVEL=$MATCH }
:0
* 1^1
öh , ja
I shoudnt try to be so quick sorry forget a : and have a false $
#
u can use with procmail $VAR a treshhold
VERBOSE=ON
# setting the level
#trash
TLVL="-10"
#quarantine
QLVL="-4"
#maybe spam
MLVL="-2"
SL="0"
# counting stars
:0
* H ?? ()^X-Spam-Level: \/[*]+
{ SPAMLEVEL=$MATCH }
# third try :)
u can use with procmail $VAR a treshhold
VERBOSE=ON
# setting the level
#trash
TLVL="-10"
#quarantine
QLVL="-4"
#maybe spam
MLVL="-2"
SL="0"
# counting stars
:0
* $ H ?? ()^X-Spam-Level: \/[*]+
{ SPAMLEVEL=$MATCH }
:0
* 1^1 SPAMLEVEL ?? ()\*
{ } SL = "$="
# with this y
spamassassin with sendmail and am using .procmailrc to
direct my incoming email to be sent to spamassassin for scoring.
What I want to do is move email tagged as spam to a specific linux
folder, but I want it to be based upon the spamassassin score – not
just the fact that spamassassin tagged it as spam
incoming email to be sent to spamassassin for scoring.
What I want to do is move email tagged as spam to a specific linux
folder, but I want it to be based upon the spamassassin score – not
just the fact that spamassassin tagged it as spam.
I am sure I need a .procmailrc entry, but I don’t know
spamassassin for scoring.
What I want to do is move email tagged as spam to a specific linux folder,
but I want it to be based upon the spamassassin score - not just the fact
that spamassassin tagged it as spam.
I am sure I need a .procmailrc entry, but I don't know what it would be.
On 6-nov-2006, at 21:30, Rob Anderson wrote:
Leander Koornneef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/06/06 02:26PM >>>
As far as I
know, there is no configuration option for this.
>
Try this from the docs under "Template Tags":
_SCORE(PAD)_ message score, if PAD is inclu
>>> Leander Koornneef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/06/06 02:26PM >>>
On 6-nov-2006, at 19:59, Claus Westerkamp wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> Id like to modify the Score output of spamassassin. I want 3digits
> display permanently (e.g. ***(Score002.3)*** or ***(Score102.3)*** )
>
> Is this possible? I wan
On 6-nov-2006, at 19:59, Claus Westerkamp wrote:
Hello list,
Id like to modify the Score output of spamassassin. I want 3digits
display permanently (e.g. ***(Score002.3)*** or ***(Score102.3)*** )
Is this possible? I want it to be able to sort the spam-messages by
Score.
Of course this
Hello list,
Id like to modify the Score output of spamassassin. I want 3digits
display permanently (e.g. ***(Score002.3)*** or ***(Score102.3)*** )
Is this possible? I want it to be able to sort the spam-messages by Score.
thanx
claus
>
> Again thanks so much Loren!
Quite welcome. It was a fun hack to think through.
There is one fix required in that file - change the word 'hits' to 'score'
in the rules. I wrote those based off a 2.64 example, and the word changed
in 3.0.
Loren
Loren Wilton wrote:
Any hints are graciously accepted and greatly appreciated.
You can't, so far as I know, do exactly what you want. However, you may be
able to come close.
Oh heck. I started the ruleset above, I just finished the thing. File
attached.
Note these rules are UNTESTED, and m
> It wasn't clear from the documentation or google searches that I could
> do this. It seemed that I could create a header and then give a score
> based upon its presence. But it wasn't obvious to me that I could
> actually read the headers value and set the initial spam score from the
> value. An
I run the Email servers for a small, rural mountain WISP and have a
situation where all Email 1st comes into a "scrubber" server (RaQ 550)
and once it passes an initial set of virus/spam tests is sent on to a
2nd server (alsa a RaQ 550) where the actual user accounts reside. On
the first server
Lisheng Sun wrote:
Could anyone here tell me how many different factors that will involve with SA?
Say, IP is belong to blacklist, URL is belong to blacklist, etc. What else?
Not include user-defined one.
Thanks.
You should probably visit http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_0_x.html
Could anyone here tell me how many different factors that will involve with SA?
Say, IP is belong to blacklist, URL is belong to blacklist, etc. What else?
Not include user-defined one.
Thanks.
56 matches
Mail list logo
