-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
mine were all discussions of spam :( doh! I'll have to remember --
*never* mark spam discussions as ham, even if you can't spot a spamsign.
- --j.
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 01:19:49AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > Quite f
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 01:19:49AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Quite frankly, I suspect corpus pollution. It really only takes 1 high
> scoring spam in the nonspam corpus to really screw up the message scores.
That's quite possible. I don't think anyone has 100% non-polluted corpus,
though try
At 12:16 AM 11/24/2004, Robert Menschel wrote:
Which brings up another point which has been mentioned on the list
before -- the BAYES_99 score is too low for well-trained systems.
I have never seen a BAYES_99 hit on any non-spam.
Yeah, it's kind of suspect.. take a look at the STATISTICS.txt data f
Hello Matt,
Tuesday, November 23, 2004, 7:32:05 PM, you wrote:
MK> At 09:51 PM 11/23/2004, Robert Menschel wrote:
>>R> 70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf
>>I personally don't use this -- I personally verify 75%+ of all mail
>>that goes through SA's analysis on three domains, and I feed 100% of
>>that ma
At 09:51 PM 11/23/2004, Robert Menschel wrote:
R> 70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf
I personally don't use this -- I personally verify 75%+ of all mail
that goes through SA's analysis on three domains, and I feed 100% of
that mail (excepting lists like this) into SA-Learn. IMO there is no
bayes poison, o
Hello Ronan,
Tuesday, November 23, 2004, 7:14:18 AM, you wrote:
R> im running 3.0.1 with the SURIBLS
R> but im starting to get the load related
R> spam acl condition: spamd connection to 127.0.0.1, port 783 failed:
R> Connection timed out
R> which of the following could i cut back on or does it d
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:14:18PM +, Ronan wrote:
> 70_sare_adult.cf
> 70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf
> 70_sare_genlsubj0.cf
> 70_sare_header0.cf
> 70_sare_html0.cf
> 70_sare_oem.cf
> 70_sare_random.cf
> 70_sare_specific.cf
> 70_sare_spoof.cf
> 70_sare_unsub.cf
> 70_sare_uri.cf
> 72_sare_bml_post
im running 3.0.1 with the SURIBLS
but im starting to get the load related
spam acl condition: spamd connection to 127.0.0.1, port 783 failed:
Connection timed out
which of the following could i cut back on or does it depend on which
types of spam our site is getting??
70_sare_adult.cf
70_sare_b
