Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 22:38 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>
> To follow-up on this suggestion...
>
>
>> That said, why add code to sa-learn when spamassassin can already do
>> something even more complete. Try feeding the message "spamassassin -r
>> --add-to-blacklist
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 22:38 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
To follow-up on this suggestion...
> That said, why add code to sa-learn when spamassassin can already do
> something even more complete. Try feeding the message "spamassassin -r
> --add-to-blacklist".
It seems (looking at -D output) that
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 22:38 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> That said, why add code to sa-learn when spamassassin can already do
> something even more complete. Try feeding the message "spamassassin -r
> --add-to-blacklist".
Ahhh. I was mistakenly thinking that sa-learn == [ update-bayes
datab
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 18:35 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> ie: you
>> can't tell sa-learn a message is spam and have it apply that information
>> in any way to the AWL. I guess that's really what my point was, and I
>> expressed it poorly.
>>
>
> I guess as the O
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 18:35 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> ie: you
> can't tell sa-learn a message is spam and have it apply that information
> in any way to the AWL. I guess that's really what my point was, and I
> expressed it poorly.
I guess as the OP of this thread, my point was that why sho
mouss wrote:
>
>>> - is it enough to pass few messages? (in short, does "manual" training
>>> have more "weight" than automatic awl learning?)
>>>
>>>
>> There's no such thing as manual training of the AWL. Actually, there's
>> no such thing as "training" for it either.
>>
>> The AWL aver
Matt Kettler a écrit :
>> I am thinking about this case: Joe the spammer bombs you with mail that
>> is not detected as spam. he gets a negative awl.
> That statement implies that there's a "score" for the user in the AWL.
>
> The AWL score varies with what the current messages pre-awl score. The
"Brian J. Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
> sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
> that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam
> score up?
And also useful[1] for t
Matt Kettler wrote:
> If a spammer is using the same sending address over and over again,
> blacklist them entirely.
>
> That said, I've never seen a spammer re-use the same address twice.
Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen – only that you’re not on any
“narrowcast” lists (e.g. “Email 200,000 British
mouss wrote:
> Matt Kettler a écrit :
>
>> mouss wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Kettler a écrit :
>>>
>>>
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
> sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for t
Matt Kettler a écrit :
> mouss wrote:
>> Matt Kettler a écrit :
>>
>>> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>>
If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
that future uses of the AWL for that spam
mouss wrote:
> Matt Kettler a écrit :
>
>> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>
>>> If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
>>> sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
>>> that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam
>
Matt Kettler a écrit :
> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
>> sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
>> that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam
>> score up?
>>
>> Thots?
>>
>
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 17:38 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> Is Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SAGrey part of the stat SA set? Neither
> yum nor CPAN seem to be able to find it here... though that could
> easily be down to user error.
Google finds it quite easily. ;)
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassas
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:56:58 -0500, Jeff Mincy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> From: Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:48:57 -0500
>
> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
> > sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful
From: Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:48:57 -0500
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
> sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
> that future uses of the AWL for th
On Wed, December 3, 2008 05:48, Matt Kettler wrote:
> That said, I've never seen a spammer re-use the same address twice.
i have :-)
olso why spf / dkim whitelist is the way to go, let spammers try to
get whitelisted
microsoft got it wroung with "Block Sender" :)
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
> sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
> that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam
> score up?
>
> Thots?
>
If a spammer is using the same s
If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with
sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so
that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam
score up?
Thots?
b.
19 matches
Mail list logo
