> All BAYES_50? Silly question, but are you sure you're properly
> training?
> Running sa-learn as the right user, and all that?
>
I must have been tired. I thought I had run sa-learn --dump ealier, but I
guess I didn't. It looks like the new server has a very high ham rate and a
low spam rat
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Gary Smith wrote:
Aug 19 15:03:11 hsoakmsa03l02 spamd[28319]: spamd: result: Y 4 -
BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,SPF_HELO_PASS,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_RH
S_DOB
scantime=0.2,size=4543,user=filter,uid=124,required_score=0.0,rhost=10.
80.65.9,raddr=10.80.65.9,rport=53097,
> > Aug 19 15:03:11 hsoakmsa03l02 spamd[28319]: spamd: result: Y 4 -
> >
> BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,SPF_HELO_PASS,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_RH
> S_DOB
> >
> scantime=0.2,size=4543,user=filter,uid=124,required_score=0.0,rhost=10.
> 80.65.9,raddr=10.80.65.9,rport=53097,mid=<509800d.5...@biblegame
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Gary Smith wrote:
Aug 19 14:53:10 hsoakmsa03l02 spamd[28319]: spamd: result: Y 5 -
BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_RHS_DOB
scantime=0.1,size=4525,user=filter,uid=124,required_score=0.0,rhost=10.80.65.9,raddr=10.80.65.9,rpor
>
> Ah. Okay. You might also be able to look up the Message-ID in
> /var/log/maillog, if you're using spamd.
>
Didn't think of that. Here is the corresponding spam result for the pastbin
entry (http://pastebin.com/m51fd9344)
<503bb52.5...@biblegame.info>
Aug 19 14:53:10 hsoakmsa03l02 spamd[2
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Gary Smith wrote:
That was in the comment right after the pastebin attachment. I will
enable debugging on the SA server so I can save it there tonight and
see
what it says.
Huh? You've lost me.
Sorry for the confusion. I had meant that there are no SA headers
becau
> > That was in the comment right after the pastebin attachment. I will
> > enable debugging on the SA server so I can save it there tonight and
> see
> > what it says.
>
> Huh? You've lost me.
>
> And I meant to say "disclaimer text", the "Any such information we
> gather
> shall never be share
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Gary Smith wrote:
I'd think that disclaimer code would be good bayes fodder, if the spams
are as consistent as you say.
That was in the comment right after the pastebin attachment. I will
enable debugging on the SA server so I can save it there tonight and see
what it s
>
> I'd think that disclaimer code would be good bayes fodder, if the spams
> are as consistent as you say.
That was in the comment right after the pastebin attachment. I will enable
debugging on the SA server so I can save it there tonight and see what it says.
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Gary Smith wrote:
Anyway,
Header: http://pastebin.com/m51fd9344
I don't see any SA markup. What rules hit?
body: http://pastebin.com/m7fe4c798
I'd think that disclaimer code would be good bayes fodder, if the spams
are as consistent as you say.
--
John Hardin KA7OH
> Is it pretty much the same body, just different senders?
Yes and no. They are all the same body layout, some with different items in
it. You can take a look at the body content here (screen captures of the
content):
http://www.localassociates.com/?page_id=7
Wares range from auto warrantee'
Quoting Gary Smith :
I've been having a pretty good hit rate on spam until recently
(about two weeks). Two types of email have been coming through at a
good rate. I'm receiving at least four per hour from the domains
included below. I've also been training bayes with them as well, to
I've been having a pretty good hit rate on spam until recently (about two
weeks). Two types of email have been coming through at a good rate. I'm
receiving at least four per hour from the domains included below. I've also
been training bayes with them as well, to no avail.
*...@chocolatebear
13 matches
Mail list logo
