On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:41:23 -0500 (CDT)
David B Funk wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> it can't with just 7 spam samples
> >
> > Oh my.
> >
> > So apparently my pre-spamassassin filtering is keeping all the best
> > spam away from sp
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Charles Sprickman wrote:
Reindl Harald wrote:
it can't with just 7 spam samples
Oh my.
So apparently my pre-spamassassin filtering is keeping all the best spam
away from spamassassin.
My autolearn threshold is set to 12 for spam. I’ll take it down a few
notches, feed
Charles Sprickman wrote:
> So apparently my pre-spamassassin filtering is keeping all the best spam
> away from spamassassin.
If you have pre-spamassassin filtering that is already classifying
message as spam then consider feeing those spam messages to
spamassassin's "sa-learn --spam" for Bayes tr
Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 29.06.2015 um 01:14 schrieb Charles Sprickman:
>> If I run sa-learn and ask it to dump some info, that works:
>>
>> [root@spam-b /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin]# sa-learn
>> --username=sp...@bway.net --dump magic
>> 0.000 0 3 0 non-toke
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:14:40 -0400
Charles Sprickman wrote:
> 0.0000 7 0 non-token data: nspam
> ...
> But I never see any bayes rule hits in the headers of my emails. I
> have in my personal sql prefs the following:
bayes_min_ham_num (Default: 200)
Am 29.06.2015 um 01:14 schrieb Charles Sprickman:
If I run sa-learn and ask it to dump some info, that works:
[root@spam-b /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin]# sa-learn
--username=sp...@bway.net --dump magic
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000
This is hopefully easier than I’m thinking it is.
We’ve been running without bayes for a very long time and I thought I’d give
it a shot again with autolearning to see if it’s helpful. The last time I
touched it was 2.6.something and we had spam scanning spread across four
servers and I don’t beli
