Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

On 17/02/2025 03:23, Bill Cole wrote: On 2025-02-16 at 04:41:25 UTC-0500 (Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:41:25 +1000) Noel Butler is rumored to have said: On 16/02/2025 01:07, Bill Cole wrote: On 2025-02-15 at 07:42:44 UTC-0500 (Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:42:44 +0100) wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn is rumore

Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

On 2025-02-16 at 04:41:25 UTC-0500 (Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:41:25 +1000) Noel Butler is rumored to have said: On 16/02/2025 01:07, Bill Cole wrote: On 2025-02-15 at 07:42:44 UTC-0500 (Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:42:44 +0100) wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn is rumored to have said: Hi Bill, so do you

Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

On 16/02/2025 01:07, Bill Cole wrote: On 2025-02-15 at 07:42:44 UTC-0500 (Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:42:44 +0100) wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn is rumored to have said: Hi Bill, so do you have another idea? Hi Stefan, No, I do not, aside from the implicit starting point: do not send spam. Mak

Re: AW: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

Users Betreff: Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain On 2025-02-15 at 07:42:44 UTC-0500 (Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:42:44 +0100) wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn is rumored to have said: Hi Bill, so do you have another idea? Hi Stefan, No, I do not, aside from the imp

AW: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain On 2025-02-15 at 07:42:44 UTC-0500 (Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:42:44 +0100) wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn is rumored to have said: > Hi Bill, > > so do you have another idea? Hi Stefan, No, I do not, aside from the implicit starting poin

Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

An: users@spamassassin.apache.org Betreff: Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain On 2025-02-13 at 13:25:44 UTC-0500 (Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:25:44 +0100) Benny Pedersen is rumored to have said: https://matrix.spfbl.net/90.186.69.50 move avay from this ip What *ev

Re: off topic, Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 10:59:11 +0100, Marc wrote: > > > > > Actually, if you look at ICANN's finances, they're retrenching because > > the new TLDs have mostly been a failure. There's a huge one-time pot > > of unexpected money from domain auctions, but they've promised to give > > it away. Other

Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

On 2025-02-13 12:49:31 -0500, John Levine wrote: > It appears that wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn said: > >Are there any specific configurations or adjustments we can make to lower > >the high spam score of our emails? > > > >Or can you put us on one of your global whi

RE: off topic, Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

> > Actually, if you look at ICANN's finances, they're retrenching because > the new TLDs have mostly been a failure. There's a huge one-time pot > of unexpected money from domain auctions, but they've promised to give > it away. Other than that, it's been at best meh, and over 100 of the > vanity

Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn skrev den 2025-02-13 18:22: Dear SpamAssassin Support Team, https://matrix.spfbl.net/212.83.50.80 non-compliance domain. i never will pay $2 for resolving this, same reason i dont use it in spamassassin anymore sorry that i did miss that you had spf pass fr

Re: off topic, Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

It appears that John Hardin said: >> PS: If this leads to questions like "what exactly was the point of the >> thousand new TLDs?" >> you're not the only one asking. > >ICANN monetizing their product. Period. Actually, if you look at ICANN's finances, they're retrenching because the new TLDs hav

Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

On 2025-02-13 at 12:49:31 UTC-0500 (13 Feb 2025 12:49:31 -0500) John Levine is rumored to have said: [...] I'm guessing that wissen.online is the same company as wissenonline.de. It's pretty clear from the 2 websites that they are entirely different. "Wissen" is German for "knowledge" so I

Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

On 2025-02-13 at 13:25:44 UTC-0500 (Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:25:44 +0100) Benny Pedersen is rumored to have said: https://matrix.spfbl.net/90.186.69.50 move avay from this ip What *evidence* do you have for the OP using that IP to connect to hosts other than his own mailserver? As far as I can

Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:22:44 +0100, "wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn" wrote: > > How can we lower our spam score due to your negative rating of our top-level > domain? > You may add your MX to https://www.dnswl.org/ and also add DMARC record like "v=DMARC1; p=none; sp

Re: AW: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

On 13/02/2025 20:16, Richard Doyle wrote: On 2/13/25 10:25 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote: wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn skrev den 2025-02-13 19:02: Hi Benny, Hi Levine, tnx! Wissen.online it also the name of our company ... so we need .online and not wissenonline.de (ist another company) stop

Re: AW: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

On 2/13/25 10:25 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn skrev den 2025-02-13 19:02: >> Hi Benny, Hi Levine, >> >> tnx! Wissen.online it also the name of our company ... so we need .online >> and not wissenonline.de (ist another company) >> >>> stop using send emails from pbl li

Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

spam score due to your negative rating of our top-level domain? I don't expect the well-earned negative reputation of .online domains changing any time soon. I set up a test rule some years ago when the first challenge to its listing was made in a bug report. To this day, it shows that

Re: AW: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025, wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn wrote: But, the fact and problem is this : PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.999 and with website in our signatur on top: FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD_FP=1.999 We probably need to resolve the overlap, but you're not going to avoid getting *some* reputational d

Re: AW: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn skrev den 2025-02-13 19:02: Hi Benny, Hi Levine, tnx! Wissen.online it also the name of our company ... so we need .online and not wissenonline.de (ist another company) stop using send emails from pbl listed ips eq dynamic ips Yes we change it next days doing

Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025, John Levine wrote: It appears that wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn said: Are there any specific configurations or adjustments we can make to lower the high spam score of our emails? Or can you put us on one of your global whitelists for trusted .online domains? I doubt

Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

John Levine skrev den 2025-02-13 18:49: I'm guessing that wissen.online is the same company as wissenonline.de. That domain should work fine. de tld will fail on pbl listed ip aswell imho :=) oh never mind

AW: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

eff: Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn skrev den 2025-02-13 18:22: > Are there any specific configurations or adjustments we can make to > lower the high spam score of our emails? https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/90.186.6

Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn skrev den 2025-02-13 18:22: Are there any specific configurations or adjustments we can make to lower the high spam score of our emails? https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/90.186.69.50.html avoid using online tld X-Spam-Status No, score=1.375 tagged_above=-999

Re: Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

It appears that wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn said: >Are there any specific configurations or adjustments we can make to lower >the high spam score of our emails? > >Or can you put us on one of your global whitelists for trusted .online >domains? I doubt there is such a thing.

Request for Whitelisting or Spam Score Adjustment for our TDL Domain

use the TDL “https://wissen.online” How can we lower our spam score due to your negative rating of our top-level domain? FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD=0.499, FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD_FP=1.999, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.999, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 Are there any specific configurations

Re: Score 0.001

Am 2024-05-13 04:33, schrieb jdow: Um, "FORGED_SPF_HELO"? Are you sure this message is from MS? {^_^} The mail/report is authentic. They already corrected this "error" or changed the sending server. In today's report FORGED_SPF_HELO is 0.001 and the score is below

Re: Score 0.001

s a status of dmarc-report from microsoft today X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.938 tagged_above=2 required=6.31     tests=[ARC_SIGNED=0.001, ARC_VALID=0.001, BASE64_LENGTH_78_79=0.1,     BASE64_LENGTH_79_INF=2.019, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,     DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DMARC_PASS=-0.001, FORGED_

Re: Score 0.001

Thomas Barth skrev den 2024-05-12 15:56: Am 2024-05-12 12:39, schrieb Greg Troxel: I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to 6.31, then probably they should not be doing that. This is a status of dmarc-report from microsoft today X-Spam-Status: Yes, score

Re: Score 0.001

Am 2024-05-12 12:39, schrieb Greg Troxel: I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to 6.31, then probably they should not be doing that. This is a status of dmarc-report from microsoft today X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.938 tagged_above=2 required=6.31 tests

Re: Score 0.001

On 12.05.24 06:39, Greg Troxel wrote: I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to 6.31, then as it was already said, it's not Debian, it's default score in amavis. Even the original header is in the amavis format: X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.999 tagg

Re: Score 0.001

I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to 6.31, then probably they should not be doing that. as a packager, I fix bugs (and file upstream bug reports), but it's usually linuxy nonportability things that are clearly bugs (test ==, hardcoded lists of accepted

Re: Score 0.001

Am 2024-05-12 01:08, schrieb jdow: Methinks this is a perfect example of "one man's spam is another man's ham." Or in my case, "A woman's spam is often a man's ham." I like spam when it's well designed. That's why I no longer reject it on my newly set up mail server. I just want them all to be

Re: Score 0.001

r are they (obviously) adjusting that threshold daily based on current scores. I found the passage in my old Postfix book. The author writes: "It is recommended not to carelessly set the value of $sa_kill_level_deflt to any fantasy values. The score of 6.31 is not arbitrarily chosen, but th

Re: Score 0.001

Am 2024-05-11 23:49, schrieb Vincent Lefevre: The value 6.31 does not even appear in the spamassassin source package. Sorry, the values are overwritten via the Amavis defaults. cat /etc/debian_version 10.13 egrep -nri "sa_tag_level_deflt|sa_kill_level_deflt" /etc /etc/amavis/conf.d/20-debian_d

Re: Score 0.001

y (obviously) >> adjusting that threshold daily based on current scores. > > I found the passage in my old Postfix book. The author writes: "It is > recommended not to carelessly set the value of $sa_kill_level_deflt to > any fantasy values. The score of 6.31 is not arbitrarily chos

Re: Score 0.001

On 2024-05-11 20:26:59 +0200, Thomas Barth wrote: > Am 2024-05-11 19:24, schrieb Loren Wilton: [...] > > > found in > > > > > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.908 tagged_above=2 required=6.31 > > > tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALI

Re: Score 0.001

ent scores. I found the passage in my old Postfix book. The author writes: "It is recommended not to carelessly set the value of $sa_kill_level_deflt to any fantasy values. The score of 6.31 is not arbitrarily chosen, but the statistically calculated optimum for the best possible spam filte

Re: Score 0.001

+ RAZOR2_CHECK + URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL) > 1) score MULTIPLE_TESTS 1 found in X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.908 tagged_above=2 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, DMARC_PASS=-0.001, FSL_BULK_SIG=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.

Re: Score 0.001

Hello Am 2024-05-11 19:24, schrieb Loren Wilton: Can I just take the names of the rules? e.g. at least two checks should fire: meta MULTIPLE_TESTS (( RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 + RAZOR2_CHECK + URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL) > 1) score MULTIPLE_TESTS 1 found in X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.908 tagged_ab

Re: Score 0.001

Can I just take the names of the rules? e.g. at least two checks should fire: meta MULTIPLE_TESTS (( RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 + RAZOR2_CHECK + URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL) > 1) score MULTIPLE_TESTS 1 found in X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.908 tagged_above=2 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=

Re: Score 0.001

Hi guys, thank you all for your advice! Am 2024-05-10 22:39, schrieb Bowie Bailey: The rules with the low scores are not intended to contribute to the spam score for the email.  They only have a defined score at all because if the score is 0, SA will not run the rule. It works like this

Re: Score 0.001

On 5/10/2024 2:57 AM, Thomas Barth wrote: Am 2024-05-10 06:19, schrieb Reindl Harald (privat): Am 10.05.24 um 00:05 schrieb Thomas Barth: Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton: Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be used in metas in conjunction with

Re: Score 0.001

-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton: >>>> Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be >>>> used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help determine ham >>>> or spam. A zero value indicates that a rule didn't hit and

Re: Score 0.001

On 2024-05-10 at 11:00:45 UTC-0400 (Fri, 10 May 2024 08:00:45 -0700 (PDT)) John Hardin is rumored to have said: > Note that poorly-performing rules may get a score that looks informational, > but that may change over time based on the corpora. IOW: rules that in themselves are not good

Re: Score 0.001

On 2024-05-09 at 18:19:14 UTC-0400 (Thu, 9 May 2024 15:19:14 -0700) jdow is rumored to have said: > On 20240509 15:05:46, Thomas Barth wrote: >> Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton: >>> Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be &g

Re: Score 0.001

On Fri, 10 May 2024, Thomas Barth wrote: So now I repeat my question: is it possible to increase the minimum value to 0.1 by default? Not really. The score for a rule is either a fixed value assigned by the rule developer or a dynamic value calculated by masscheck nightly. There isn'

Re: Score 0.001

On 20240509 23:57:12, Thomas Barth wrote: Am 2024-05-10 06:19, schrieb Reindl Harald (privat): Am 10.05.24 um 00:05 schrieb Thomas Barth: Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton: Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be used in metas in conjunction with

Re: Score 0.001

On 09.05.24 20:41, Thomas Barth wrote: I don't understand why there are so many checks where the meaningless value of 0.001 is assigned. Those rules may be tested in the present. They also may be informative, e.g. DMARC_MISSING or SPF_PASS rules with score 0 are not used so using 0 i

Re: Score 0.001

Am 2024-05-10 06:19, schrieb Reindl Harald (privat): Am 10.05.24 um 00:05 schrieb Thomas Barth: Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton: Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help determine ham or spam

Re: Score 0.001

On 20240509 15:05:46, Thomas Barth wrote: Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton: Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help determine ham or spam. A zero value indicates that a rule didn't hit an

Re: Score 0.001

Am 2024-05-09 21:41, schrieb Loren Wilton: Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help determine ham or spam. A zero value indicates that a rule didn't hit and the sign is not present. A small

Re: Score 0.001

Low-score tests are neither spam nor ham signs by themselves. They can be used in metas in conjunction with other indicators to help determine ham or spam. A zero value indicates that a rule didn't hit and the sign is not present. A small score indicates that the rule did hit, so the sign

Score 0.001

Hello, I don't understand why there are so many checks where the meaningless value of 0.001 is assigned. The total score could be much higher. Do I have to define all the checks myself with a desired value? X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.999 tagged_above=2 required=6.31 tests=[DMARC_MI

NOTE: Score updates stalled.

For over a week, we've had too few mass-scan submissions for RuleQA to run properly. If you normally submit your logs, please confirm that your process is functional. If you would like to participate in the RuleQA process by submitting scan results, see the wiki for how to do so. -- Bill

Re: 0 score not voiding rule

On 28/05/2023 12:02, Thomas Cameron wrote: On 5/27/23 17:21, Noel Butler wrote: apparently does not disable the rule (like 0 disables all the others), is that a way of forcing your world view upon the rest of the world Kevin? I thought this welcome crap wasnt being applied until next release...

Re: 0 score not voiding rule

On 5/27/23 17:21, Noel Butler wrote: apparently does not disable the rule (like 0 disables all the others), is that a way of forcing your world view upon the rest of the world Kevin? > I thought this welcome crap wasnt being applied until next release... I guess Kevin that changed quickly, I m

Re: 0 score not voiding rule

AS usual I still dont get whatever you're going on about benny, but v4 was where these changes were to be, yes, BUT none of our servers are on v4 ls /var/lib/spamassassin/ 3.004006/ compiled/ On 28/05/2023 00:06, an unmedicated Benny Pedersen trolled: -- Regards, Noel Butler This Email

Re: 0 score not voiding rule

On 28/05/2023 02:53, John Hardin wrote: On Sat, 27 May 2023, Noel Butler wrote: USER_IN_WELCOMELIST 0 apparently does not disable the rule (like 0 disables all the others), it is still scoring negative values on messages despite being set some time ago, and surviving "new kernel" server res

Re: 0 score not voiding rule

On Sat, 27 May 2023, Noel Butler wrote: USER_IN_WELCOMELIST 0 apparently does not disable the rule (like 0 disables all the others), it is still scoring negative values on messages despite being set some time ago, and surviving "new kernel" server restarts Did you also add: USER_IN_WHITE

Re: 0 score not voiding rule

sassin_org/60_welcomelist.cf: describe USER_IN_WELCOMELIST User is listed in 'welcomelist_from' /var/lib/spamassassin/4.00/updates_spamassassin_org/60_welcomelist.cf: tflags USER_IN_WELCOMELIST userconf nice noautolearn /var/lib/spamassassin/4.00/updates_spamassassin_org/60_wel

0 score not voiding rule

USER_IN_WELCOMELIST 0 apparently does not disable the rule (like 0 disables all the others), is that a way of forcing your world view upon the rest of the world Kevin? it is still scoring negative values on messages despite being set some time ago, and surviving "new kernel" server restarts

Re: mystery score definition

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 08:31:19AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > > It might be more common, but it's very surprising to me, because the > manual page documents that () works Let's face it, lot of the stuff in SA including documentation is probably over decade old. And documentation is always the l

Re: mystery score definition

Henrik K writes: > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:12:35AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: >> Henrik K writes: >> >> > From what I've seen, it's very uncommon to use this format. Why rely on >> > some vague previously defined score, which can change at any ti

Re: mystery score definition

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:12:35AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > Henrik K writes: > > > From what I've seen, it's very uncommon to use this format. Why rely on > > some vague previously defined score, which can change at any time? Just set > > a static s

Re: mystery score definition

Henrik K writes: > From what I've seen, it's very uncommon to use this format. Why rely on > some vague previously defined score, which can change at any time? Just set > a static score you like and fits your system. It's not vague; it's the score which is def

Re: mystery score definition

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:21:20AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > > But is it good practice for the main distributed rules to rely on this > default? It feels like a lint/pedantic error to define a rule that is > not T_ or __ and does not have an assigned score. But maybe this is

Re: mystery score definition

Try something like this if I understand you correctly trying to score is a __ rule: meta OBFU_UNSUB_UL ( __OBFU_UNSUB_UL >=1 ) There are plenty of rules that are designed to be conditions in other meta rules. Now that you've created a rule that relies on that condition you can score

Re: mystery score definition

Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes: > On 11.05.23 10:58, Greg Troxel wrote: >>I am seeing a lot of "claim your prize from X", where X is a known >>company, coming from fresh foo.autos domains. I bet y'all are seeing >>this too. Until these get on blocklists they

Re: mystery score definition

On 11.05.23 10:58, Greg Troxel wrote: I am seeing a lot of "claim your prize from X", where X is a known company, coming from fresh foo.autos domains. I bet y'all are seeing this too. Until these get on blocklists they don't score that high. One rule that does hit is OBF

mystery score definition

I am seeing a lot of "claim your prize from X", where X is a known company, coming from fresh foo.autos domains. I bet y'all are seeing this too. Until these get on blocklists they don't score that high. One rule that does hit is OBFU_UNSUB_UL which is defined in 72_ac

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

please spamassassin -D bayes -t file.eml 2>/tmp/z and in /tmp/z you will have the score assigned to the "tokens"... from those points you will understand what created the different totals. If you can you may relearn all the messages, both ham and spam, with the tip suggested a coupl

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 10:41 PM, Loren Wilton wrote: They receive wildly different BAYES scores. * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% *  [score: 0.0002] *  2.2 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% *  [score: 0.0881] This looks like you have per-user Bayes

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 8:24 PM, joe a wrote: Did a simple test today sending an email from a gmail account to two email accounts on my system.   The only difference was the email address, both were on the same "To:" line in the composed messages. They receive wildly different BAYES scores. as was ment

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 8:24 PM, joe a wrote: On 2/17/2023 3:25 PM, joe a wrote: Did a simple test today sending an email from a gmail account to two email accounts on my system.   The only difference was the email address, both were on the same "To:" line in the composed messages. They receive wildly

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2023-02-17 at 22:41:05 UTC-0500 (Fri, 17 Feb 2023 19:41:05 -0800) Loren Wilton is rumored to have said: They receive wildly different BAYES scores. * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0002] * 2.2 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

They receive wildly different BAYES scores. * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0002] * 2.2 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% * [score: 0.0881] This looks like you have per-user Bayes databases, and the messaage type has been trained

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

YES scores. -- X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5 (2021-03-20) on myserver X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=4.9 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, IXHASH_X1,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 11:44 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 10:54 -0500, joe a wrote: Could it have been that simple? If, like myself, you find reference books useful, you may want to get a copy of "Linux in a Nutshell" - an O'Reilly book. It tends to assume you know at least one oth

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 10:54 -0500, joe a wrote: Could it have been that simple? On 17.02.23 16:44, Martin Gregorie wrote: If, like myself, you find reference books useful, you may want to get a copy of "Linux in a Nutshell" - an O'Reilly book. It tends to assume you know at least one other OS

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 10:54 -0500, joe a wrote: > Could it have been that simple? > If, like myself, you find reference books useful, you may want to get a copy of "Linux in a Nutshell" - an O'Reilly book. It tends to assume you know at least one other OS fairly well, is well organised and conci

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 4:42 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 16.02.23 15:57, joe a wrote: Re-energized having recently heroically wrestled an elusive issue (to me) into surrender . . . we now turn to another issue. Probably I need to retrain BAYES "From scratch".  I have a mess (years?) of stored s

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 7:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 16.02.23 um 23:34 schrieb joe a: I have no idea what you refer to when you state "don't user proper packages".  "Proper" in what sense? A rhetorical question. i have no idea how you installed SA but rpm packages or debs usually have correct perm

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 23:32 +0100, hg user wrote: > root can do anything. a restricted user can't: it's only allowed to do > what > others allowed it. > > it also runs with another environment, so it may miss PATHes or @INC > directories. > You can check this by running  env | less from a comma

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 16.02.23 15:57, joe a wrote: Re-energized having recently heroically wrestled an elusive issue (to me) into surrender . . . we now turn to another issue. Probably I need to retrain BAYES "From scratch". I have a mess (years?) of stored sample emails that and be relearned. I understand th

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/16/2023 9:13 PM, joe a wrote: Well, I am in unfamiliar waters. picking one error message as typical: plugin: failed to parse plugin (from @INC): Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/iXhash2.pm: lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/iXhash2.pm: Permission denied at (eval 1746) line 1. The fil

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/16/2023 8:28 PM, Matija Nalis wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 05:34:37PM -0500, joe a wrote: Oh, of course. I installed as root initially, being foolish perhaps, but did create a specific user "later" and adjusted permissions as needed. Or, so I thought. well, installing as root (especi

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 05:34:37PM -0500, joe a wrote: > Oh, of course. I installed as root initially, being foolish perhaps, but > did create a specific user "later" and adjusted permissions as needed. Or, > so I thought. well, installing as root (especially with restrictive umask) manually (

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

. . . it also runs with another environment, so it may miss PATHes or @INC directories. That throws me a curve.  What is an @INC directory?  SA specific? I do not find any with the locate command, but if the are an actual directory may need to escape the @ sign somehow.  \ does not seem to do

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/16/2023 5:32 PM, hg user wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 9:57 PM joe a > wrote: plugin: failed to parse plugin (from @INC): Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: Permission denied at (eval

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

. . . I have no idea what you refer to when you state "don't user proper packages".  "Proper" in what sense? A rhetorical question. i have no idea how you installed SA but rpm packages or debs usually have correct permissions Oh, of course. I installed as root initially, being foolish per

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 9:57 PM joe a wrote: > > plugin: failed to parse plugin (from @INC): Can't locate > Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: > lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: Permission denied at (eval 44) > line 1. > root can do anything. a restricted user can't: it's only allowed

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/16/2023 4:30 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 16.02.23 um 21:57 schrieb joe a: I understand that sa-learn should be run as the same user as spamd, however I find it has always been run as root and when running as the spamassassin user results in errors, such as: ~su -c "sa-learn --spam /var

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/14/2023 6:09 PM, joe a wrote: Please let this sit for a while, I've discovered a fundamental issue with my scheme of feeding messages to BAYES.  Unfortunately I was remiss, apparently, it setting up logging for some bits, so have no idea how long this has been failing. Sorry for the clut

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

nguish them quite nicely. > > However, many of tokens in even Forbes and WP newsletters may occure in > different spamy newsletters, so be careful when traning even these. > > If you get the score down enough not to be classified as spam, you've won > and should not contine (un

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

t the score down enough not to be classified as spam, you've won and should not contine (unless you are willing to check all BAYES_0 mail for suspicious newsletters and train those as spam, seeing how much it affects mentioned Forbes and WP newsletters. Too bad it wasn't possible to buil

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

which newsletters may have been miscategorized or trained incorrectly, but also ever being able to correct an improperly trained newsletter (or email in general). > If you get the score down enough not to be classified as spam, you've won > and should not contine (unless you are willi

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

esting effectivity - if you train Forbes and WP newsletters as ham, and other newsletters as spam, bayes should be able to distinguish them quite nicely. However, many of tokens in even Forbes and WP newsletters may occure in different spamy newsletters, so be careful when traning even these.

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

WP or Forbes, their emails will be flagged. It's normal. If you want you can use bayes_ignore_header to ignore some headers. On 2/15/23, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >>>*-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% >>> >* [score: 0.] >>>

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

*-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% >* [score: 0.] This indicates a mistrained database, which means you have trained too many spams or spam-like messages (commercial messages) as ham. Proper training of spams should help. Just keep your spam (and optionally

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 13.02.23 17:42, joe a wrote: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES.  Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% *  [score: 0.] On 2/14/2023 2:56 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >