On Thu, March 26, 2009 17:26, Chris Barnes wrote:
> I tried that. Didn't seem to help. I think I'll go ahead and just
> rm the files.
rm = Read Manuals ? :=)
--
http://localhost/ 100% uptime and 100% mirrored :)
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
No, I don't still have the messages that were incorrectly trained.
So... it appears that wiping out the bayes database is the way to go.
One final question for this then: is there a "sa-learn" option I should
use for this, or is doing a simple "rm bayes*" in the .
On 25.03.09 11:01, Chris Barnes wrote:
> Thank you for such a good, reasonable answer (it's good to see SOMEONE
> is trying to answer questions with non-flippant responses). :-)
>
> No, I don't still have the messages that were incorrectly trained.
> So... it appears that wiping out the bayes
Jeff Mincy wrote:
The question is: How does one fix the problem after it occurs?
The way to fix the problem is to relearn any incorrectly learned
messages. So any spam message that was incorrectly learned as ham,
either automatically or manually, needs to be correctly relearned as
spam usi
From: Chris Barnes
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:14:37 -0500
Jeff Mincy wrote:
> Yow. The negative scoring bayes rules are extremely reliable when well
> trained. Ham messages are not trying to evade the filter. Defeating
> bayes with poison is mostly a myth. The random g
On 23-Mar-2009, at 10:14, Chris Barnes wrote:
But the problem remains. A simple glance at this list shows that
this happens often enough to be a fairly common problem.
Because people don't train bayes properly.
The question is: How does one fix the problem after it occurs?
Train bayes wi
Jeff Mincy wrote:
Yow. The negative scoring bayes rules are extremely reliable when well
trained. Ham messages are not trying to evade the filter. Defeating
bayes with poison is mostly a myth. The random garbage might work the
first time but not the second time as long as you are training th
> Hoover Chan wrote:
> >The threshold was set to 6.6 (cf. required=6.6). The message this was
> >attached to was very definitely junk. This kind of situation got me
> >curious about the whole thing where any positive spam score is set as the
> >threshold but seeing junk mail coming in with negat
On 20-Mar-2009, at 14:18, Hoover Chan wrote:
Can someone point me to what I can do to my Spam Assassin config for
a situation like the following?
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.496 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6
tests=[AWL=-1.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
URIBL_BLACK=1.
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.496 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6
> tests=[AWL=-1.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
> URIBL_BLACK=1.955, URIBL_GREY=0.25]
^
Other than what's already been mentioned about Bayes and AWL...
Either (a) there are
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:14:39 -0500
Jesse Stroik wrote:
> It's a matter of taste and what you believe makes sense, but I don't
> consider bayes to be all that accurate (since there are methods for
> defeating bayes, poisoning bayes, etc). As such, I don't allow Bayes
> to assign negative scores
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Jesse Stroik wrote:
Hoover Chan wrote:
The threshold was set to 6.6 (cf. required=6.6). The message this was
attached to was very definitely junk. This kind of situation got me
curious about the whole thing where any positive spam score is set as
the threshold but seein
From: Jesse Stroik
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:14:39 -0500
Hoover Chan wrote:
> The threshold was set to 6.6 (cf. required=6.6). The message this was
attached to was very definitely junk. This kind of situation got me curious
about the whole thing where any positive spam score is s
Hoover Chan wrote:
The threshold was set to 6.6 (cf. required=6.6). The message this was attached
to was very definitely junk. This kind of situation got me curious about the
whole thing where any positive spam score is set as the threshold but seeing
junk mail coming in with negative scores.
From: Hoover Chan
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
The threshold was set to 6.6 (cf. required=6.6). The message this
was attached to was very definitely junk. This kind of situation got
me curious about the whole thing where any positive spam score is
set as the th
The threshold was set to 6.6 (cf. required=6.6). The message this was attached
to was very definitely junk. This kind of situation got me curious about the
whole thing where any positive spam score is set as the threshold but seeing
junk mail coming in with negative scores.
Thanks.
--
Hoover Chan wrote:
Can someone point me to what I can do to my Spam Assassin config for a
situation like the following?
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.496 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6
tests=[AWL=-1.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
URIBL_BLACK=1.955, URIBL_GREY=0.25]
That
Can someone point me to what I can do to my Spam Assassin config for a
situation like the following?
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.496 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6
tests=[AWL=-1.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
URIBL_BLACK=1.955, URIBL_GREY=0.25]
That is, a positive score
18 matches
Mail list logo
