Re: Can someone explain how to read Bayes stats?

On 27 Nov 2019, at 06:52, Anders Gustafsson wrote: > 0.000 0 3184 0 non-token data: nspam > 0.000 0 17298 0 non-token data: nham Plenty of spam and ham learned > 0.000 0 1553643652 0 non-token data: oldest atime Oldest data is

Re: Can someone explain how to read Bayes stats?

On 27.11.19 15:52, Anders Gustafsson wrote: pamir:~ # sa-learn --dump magic 0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version 0.000 0 3184 0 non-token data: nspam 0.000 0 17298 0 non-token data: nham 0.000 0 1645

Can someone explain how to read Bayes stats?

Ie: pamir:~ # sa-learn --dump magic 0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version 0.000 0 3184 0 non-token data: nspam 0.000 0 17298 0 non-token data: nham 0.000 0 164549 0 non-token data: ntokens 0

Re: sa-stats log analyzer (RE: Missed spam, suggestions?)

nybody know what was the newest one last avaialable on the > rulesemporium site? Anbody got something newer than v1.03? > > I've done a bit of hacking to my copy (such as adding the S/O ratio stats). > > >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Erickarlo Porro wrote: >> >

sa-stats log analyzer (RE: Missed spam, suggestions?)

e is v0.93. I've got v1.03 Does anybody know what was the newest one last avaialable on the rulesemporium site? Anbody got something newer than v1.03? I've done a bit of hacking to my copy (such as adding the S/O ratio stats). On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Erickarlo Porro wrote: I would like

Re: Uptick in spam (bayes stats script)

Am 22.02.2015 um 15:30 schrieb @lbutlr: On 21 Feb 2015, at 08:34 , LuKreme wrote: On Feb 18, 2015, at 6:20 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: That is a lot cleaner and more obvious, thank you for sharing I ran this just after log rotation and got div by zero errors, so here is a (nearly) compl

Re: Uptick in spam (bayes stats script)

On 21 Feb 2015, at 08:34 , LuKreme wrote: > On Feb 18, 2015, at 6:20 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> > > That is a lot cleaner and more obvious, thank you for sharing I ran this just after log rotation and got div by zero errors, so here is a (nearly) completely pointless ‘fix’: BAYES_TOTAL=

Re: Uptick in spam (bayes stats script)

On Feb 18, 2015, at 6:20 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > That is a lot cleaner and more obvious, thank you for sharing -- Once again I teeter at the precipice of the generation gap.

Re: Uptick in spam (bayes stats script)

Am 17.02.2015 um 15:23 schrieb Reindl Harald: Am 17.02.2015 um 15:19 schrieb LuKreme: On 16 Feb 2015, at 12:01 , Reindl Harald wrote: given that 24266 messages had BAYES_00 with a total number of 30401 delivered mails in the current month that training strategy seems to work well [root@mail-

Re: EmailBL stats

On Samstag 23 Mai 2009 Chris wrote: > EmailB Of 71 messages where EMAILBL hit, 3 were still marked ham but really spam (points: 2.0, 3.0, 3.1), no FPs. One message was just pushed over 5.0 by EMAILBL and would have been a FN otherwise. So it helps here. We have a very hard setup and only few sp

Re: Stats (was: The EmailBL test zone period has been extended to July 1st.)

lso know how much of spam are generally from freemails, so >> FREEMAIL_FROM/BODY/REPLYTO figures would be nice also when reporting. It >> might differ from user to user. > > I just spent some time putting together some stats.  I'm going to try > to follow the excellent lead of

Re: Stats (was: The EmailBL test zone period has been extended to July 1st.)

nd submissions, it could be even nicer. ;-) Keep the reports coming in. It > would be nice to also know how much of spam are generally from freemails, so > FREEMAIL_FROM/BODY/REPLYTO figures would be nice also when reporting. It > might differ from user to user. I just spent some time puttin

Re: Stats (was: The EmailBL test zone period has been extended to July 1st.)

Sorry, quoting self. > > > An interesting observation is, that the hitrate (in percent) in spam > > > scoring < 15 is an order of magnitude higher than with high-scoring [1] > > > spam. This is rare to find... > That's limited to EmailBL hits, so the total of these hits equal 100%. > For me that

Re: Stats (was: The EmailBL test zone period has been extended to July 1st.)

rare to find... > > My EMAILBL_TEST_LEM hitrate leans heavily toward the other end of the > spectrum with almost 88% scoring > 15. My data is based on a little more > than 100,000 emails. Wait, you're looking at the hits differently than I did. > Stats for only messages

Re: Stats (was: The EmailBL test zone period has been extended to July 1st.)

other end of the spectrum with almost 88% scoring > 15. My data is based on a little more than 100,000 emails. EMAILBL_TEST_LEM stats for all messages passed through Spamassassin: - hit 2.00% of all email tagged as spam. - hit 0.04% of all email tagged as ham. There were no false positives a

Re: Stats (was: The EmailBL test zone period has been extended to July 1st.)

mails, so > FREEMAIL_FROM/BODY/REPLYTO figures would be nice also when reporting. It > might differ from user to user. > Freemail stats from 3 May through yesterday: Rule Name Score Ham Spam

Re: EmailBL stats

ou enabled EmailBL. > So that draws another picture than the per-month percentage above: > > 11 hits / 95 spam == 11.6% > > Out of curiosity, do you run any SMTP time checks or blacklists, > rejecting mail before SA gets to see them? Given those numbers, I assume > the ans

Re: EmailBL stats

ks or blacklists, rejecting mail before SA gets to see them? Given those numbers, I assume the answer is yes, and these stats don't include the bulk of spam or spam connection attempts. > I must have deleted your earlier post so I can't refer back to it. If > this is not what your

RE: Stats (was: The EmailBL test zone period has been extended toJuly 1st.)

-Original Message- From: Henrik K [mailto:h...@hege.li] Sent: Fri 22-May-09 23:06 To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Stats (was: The EmailBL test zone period has been extended toJuly 1st.) >On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 09:28:55PM +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: >> >

Re: Stats (was: The EmailBL test zone period has been extended to July 1st.)

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 09:28:55PM +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > > The EmailBL test zone period has been extended to July 1st. > > As promised, here are some results from me, now that I got some half- > decent spam throughput. Not an ISP, not a company. Have been running the > original cf fo

Re: EmailBL stats

On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 04:11 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > What about some grep love, and splitting that up in at least less and > greater than a total of score 15? See my post about 6 hours ago, and > considerably more hits in the low-ish scoring spam. > > > > Spam: 192 > > (thats a total

Re: EmailBL stats

What about some grep love, and splitting that up in at least less and greater than a total of score 15? See my post about 6 hours ago, and considerably more hits in the low-ish scoring spam. > Spam: 192 > (thats a total count since 3 May) > > Totals since last Thursday 14 May > Rule Name

EmailBL stats

Ham: 329 Spam: 192 (thats a total count since 3 May) Totals since last Thursday 14 May EmailBL.cf: Rule NameScore Ham Spam %of Ham %of Spam --- EMAILBL_TEST_LEM 0.50 0 11 0.

Stats (was: The EmailBL test zone period has been extended to July 1st.)

> The EmailBL test zone period has been extended to July 1st. As promised, here are some results from me, now that I got some half- decent spam throughput. Not an ISP, not a company. Have been running the original cf for 5 days, then updated. Since then another 5 days passed. 8.7% hits in spa

EmailBL Stats

Ham: 294 Spam: 163 EmailBL.cf: Rule Name Score Ham Spam %of Ham %of Spam --- EMAILBL_TEST_LEM 0.50 0 10 0.00% 6.13% --

Re: EmailBl Stats

Well since we're all doing show-and-tell, so far in the past 24 hours 2310 email have triggered the EMAILBL* rules, of which (with the default 0.5 score) 70 were FN i.e. if I increased the score to 2, all those 70 would have been marked as spam (and I checked: they were spam) -- Cheers Jason Ha

Re: EmailBl Stats

Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 10:50 -0400, DAve wrote: I will see about the update, for now the last five days stats are as follows. Total mail through SA = 208,498 Total spam messages tagged with EMAILBL = 1471 Total non spam messages tagged with EMAILBL = 128 What

Re: EmailBl Stats

On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 10:50 -0400, DAve wrote: > I will see about the update, for now the last five days stats are as > follows. > > Total mail through SA = 208,498 > Total spam messages tagged with EMAILBL = 1471 > Total non spam messages tagged with EMAILBL = 128 What exactl

Re: EmailBl Stats

most popular ones). There's been few added, so you might want to download > it daily: > Slightly different set of stats from me as I'm not running it in SA but rejecting at SMTP time. Here's the stats from the last two hours when I enabled the querying of the emailbl: 214-2

Re: EmailBl Stats

I installed the plugin last Tuesday. As of this morning (using the original domain list): Total Messages Processed: 2933 Number identified as spam: 2464 Total number tagged by EMAILBL: 7 Number of FNs tagged by EMAILBL: 2 The two FNs scored a 3. So if EMAILBL had enough weight, SA would have c

Re: EmailBl Stats

the update, for now the last five days stats are as follows. Total mail through SA = 208,498 Total spam messages tagged with EMAILBL = 1471 Total non spam messages tagged with EMAILBL = 128 FP seen = 0 (fully %80 of our traffic never gets to SA) DAve -- "Posterity, you will know how much

Re: EmailBl Stats

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 08:25:58AM -0500, Chris wrote: > Started running the plug-in Thursday and though I don't get much spam a > day I am getting hits: > > Ham: 232 > Spam: 113 > (thats a total count since 3 May) > > EmailBL.cf: > Rule Name Score Ham Spam %of Ham %of

EmailBl Stats

Started running the plug-in Thursday and though I don't get much spam a day I am getting hits: Ham: 232 Spam: 113 (thats a total count since 3 May) EmailBL.cf: Rule Name Score Ham Spam %of Ham %of Spam ---

Re: SA rules stats (Was: SARE false positives on MY_CID_* rules)

On Thursday 29 January 2009 23:33:49 Rajkumar S wrote: > 2009/1/30 Stefan Jakobs > > > After activating the rule I haven't seen any more FP. But that doesn't > > mean much. Here are my stats from yesterday: > > > > Rank Hits

Re: SA rules stats (Was: SARE false positives on MY_CID_* rules)

On Freitag, 30. Januar 2009 06:33:49 Rajkumar S wrote: > > After activating the rule I haven't seen any more FP. But that doesn't > > mean much. Here are my stats from yesterday: > > > > Rank Hits% Msgs

SA rules stats (Was: SARE false positives on MY_CID_* rules)

2009/1/30 Stefan Jakobs > After activating the rule I haven't seen any more FP. But that doesn't mean > much. Here are my stats from yesterday: > > Rank Hits% Msgs % Spam% Ham Score Rule > -- --- -

Re: Not a reply: spamassassin stats (was Re: Tuning the bayes-system?)

Moin, Koopmann, Jan-Peter schrieb: > can you share your new script with the MailScanner changes with us? of cause I can... But the script will only work with German reports [1], you have change it. I am no perl-guru, so changes are welcome! You can find the script here:

RE: Re: Not a reply: spamassassin stats (was Re: Tuning the bayes-system?)

Hi, can you share your new script with the MailScanner changes with us? Kind regards, JP

Re: Not a reply: spamassassin stats (was Re: Tuning the bayes-system?)

Hello Mathias, I am useing a variant of the sa-stats script: <http://www.rulesemporium.com/programs/sa-stats-1.0.txt> I had to change some things to get it work with my MailScanner-setup. Bye, Heiner Mathias Homann schrieb: > Am Dienstag 21 Oktober 2008 schrieb Heinrich Christi

Not a reply: spamassassin stats (was Re: Tuning the bayes-system?)

43BAYES_20 -0.74 30.65 >0.620.97 12.00 > > conf: > bayes_expiry_max_db_size 150 > bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 7.5 What are you using to generate those stats? I'd like to have that on my server as well. bye, MH -- gpg key fingerprint: 5F64 4C92 9B77 DE37 D184 C5F9 B013 44E7 27BD 763C

Giving Back--A stats script I wrote

This may be kinda simple for you gurus out there, in which case I welcome your feedback and suggestions to make this better. But if anyone finds this useful...great! I wanted a stats tool that would tell me what rules were hit on the most. Which ones ONLY trigger on spam and which ones ONLY

Re: rDNS none in stats with IPv6

SpamAssassin doesn't perform DNS lookups on the Received headers if at all possible -- it's assumed that your MTA will do that in advance. Thanks for that. I found this out late last night, and I believe I've got the issue resolved. Regards, Steve

Re: rDNS none in stats with IPv6

Steve Bertrand writes: > I've added debugging code to new_dns_packet() and bgsend() > (DnsResolver.pm) to print out $host, $type and $class to a log file. > > What I found is that the mapped address entries are not even seen by > DnsResolver.pm at all, hence, there is no DNS lookup even attempt

Re: rDNS none in stats with IPv6

First, I would advise you not to use mapped addresses unless you really need to use them. On BSD, there's a sysctl to control whether v4 connections will match v6 sockets: net.inet6.ip6.v6only = 1 Best practice seems to be to have daemons open a v4 and v6 socket separately, and avoid mapped add

Re: rDNS none in stats with IPv6

Steve Bertrand wrote: I've added debugging code to new_dns_packet() and bgsend() (DnsResolver.pm) to print out $host, $type and $class to a log file. What I found is that the mapped address entries are not even seen by DnsResolver.pm at all, hence, there is no DNS lookup even attempted on the

Re: rDNS none in stats with IPv6

I've added debugging code to new_dns_packet() and bgsend() (DnsResolver.pm) to print out $host, $type and $class to a log file. What I found is that the mapped address entries are not even seen by DnsResolver.pm at all, hence, there is no DNS lookup even attempted on them. I'm off to find out

Re: rDNS none in stats with IPv6

Hmmm...just out of curiosity, what is the first entry below used for, if Resolver.pm is used for header checks? pearl# locate Resolver.pm /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/Mail/SpamAssassin/DnsResolver.pm /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/Net/DNS/Resolver.pm ...nevermind, sorry f

Re: rDNS none in stats with IPv6

Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (:::140.211.11.2) by pearl.ibctech.ca with SMTP; 28 May 2008 09:13:00 - Can someone inform me if this is an SA thing, and if so, where to begin looking/testing with the source to correct this issue? The Received headers are parsed in Rec

Re: rDNS none in stats with IPv6

Greg Troxel wrote: In my SA stats, the majority (+90%) of email inbound is classified as rdns_none. I have a suspicion that this is due to the IPv6-IPv4 mapped address being written into the headers when I am speaking to a non-native IPv6 MTA: Received: from unknown (HELO

Re: rDNS none in stats with IPv6

Greg Troxel wrote: In my SA stats, the majority (+90%) of email inbound is classified as rdns_none. (I presume you are trying to make this server IPv6 only instead of dual stack. When my machine had a globally routable v6 address I got some mail over v6 and some over v4, but didn't

Re: rDNS none in stats with IPv6

In my SA stats, the majority (+90%) of email inbound is classified as rdns_none. I have a suspicion that this is due to the IPv6-IPv4 mapped address being written into the headers when I am speaking to a non-native IPv6 MTA: Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (::

Re: rDNS none in stats with IPv6

ed to get IPv6 compliant. However, I'm having a very hard time determining exactly where the DNS checks are performed, and how to correct an issue. In my SA stats, the majority (+90%) of email inbound is classified as rdns_none. I have a suspicion that this is due to the IPv6-IPv4 m

rDNS none in stats with IPv6

determining exactly where the DNS checks are performed, and how to correct an issue. In my SA stats, the majority (+90%) of email inbound is classified as rdns_none. I have a suspicion that this is due to the IPv6-IPv4 mapped address being written into the headers when I am speaking to a

Re: Fired rules stats understanding

you will see a lot of "collaborative rules" like razor,uribl,dcc_check. I wonder why there isn't more heuristic and bayesian rules in my top. Do you think that my stats seem to be "normal" or is there something wrong ? Any suggestions are welcome. It's really a

Re: Fired rules stats understanding

"collaborative rules" like razor,uribl,dcc_check. I wonder why there isn't more heuristic and bayesian rules in my top. Do you think that my stats seem to be "normal" or is there something wrong ? Any suggestions are welcome. It's really absurd that RDNS_NONE is fir

Fired rules stats understanding

quot; like razor,uribl,dcc_check. I wonder why there isn't more heuristic and bayesian rules in my top. Do you think that my stats seem to be "normal" or is there something wrong ? Any suggestions are welcome. Here my top rul

Re: Who can tell me where the latest sa-stats can be found.

On Monday 16 July 2007 9:47 pm, Dallas Engelken wrote: > > > I havent touched them for a while and havent checked if v1.03 even works > with SA 3.2. If something needs to be done, let me know. 1.03 is working just fine here Dallas w/SA3.2.1 -- Chris KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C pgpcaCcsXAAu1.pg

Re: Who can tell me where the latest sa-stats can be found.

-3.1.x but version 1.03 seems to be for sa-3.0. (BTW, they both seem to be dated 2007-01-30 at http://rulesemporium.com/programs/ ) what the hell are you reading? http://rulesemporium.com/programs/sa-stats-1.0.txt = v1.03 is the latest, for SA 3.1 # version: 1.03 # author: Dallas Engelk

Who can tell me where the latest sa-stats can be found.

I used to use it but it's old and has bugs. I recent;y found out that it's *not* part of the sa distro. Is this still supported and if so, where do I get it? I looked around and found hugely conflicting version info. e.g., version 0.93 seems to support sa-3.1.x but version 1.03 seems to be for

Re: sa-stats and no spamd logs.

& antispam statistics... Luix 2007/5/10, mbano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: HI, is there a way to extract statistics as with sa-stats from spamassassin, even if spamd is not used (so no logs spamd format), and it is used spamassassin from amavis-new instead. anybody have a similar need? Or ..

sa-stats and no spamd logs.

HI, is there a way to extract statistics as with sa-stats from spamassassin, even if spamd is not used (so no logs spamd format), and it is used spamassassin from amavis-new instead. anybody have a similar need? Or .. logs in sql and php... thanks in advance -- View this message in context

Re: sa-stats and Spamtagging

On 13-Feb-2007, at 09:08, Alexis Manning wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... Am I worrying over nothing? I do seem to get spam only on those accounts for which greylisting is inactive, but on those I get a LOT that SA fails to tag, including just about every one of those image spams with the 2K or

Re: sa-stats and Spamtagging

On 13-Feb-2007, at 08:39, Chris St. Pierre wrote: This is where a user feedback look -- such as spam/ham reporting links in your webmail client, or the equivalent training for desktop client users -- can be really useful. Ideally I'd like to have per-user bayes, but some of my users are manag

Re: sa-stats and Spamtagging

[EMAIL PROTECTED] says... > Am I worrying over nothing? I do seem to get spam only on those > accounts for which greylisting is inactive, but on those I get a LOT > that SA fails to tag, including just about every one of those image > spams with the 2K or so of seemingly randomish text in th

Re: sa-stats and Spamtagging

o the fact that it's hitting on 35% of your spam is pretty meaningless, really. sa-stats counts something as spam that SA marks as spam. So the fact that BAYES_99 is hitting on 5% of ham means (roughly) that 5% of your unmarked mail hit either only BAYES_99 or BAYES_99 and not enough other rul

sa-stats and Spamtagging

I recently ran sa-stats (Dallas's script, not the one in SA) Email:10373 Autolearn: 1575 AvgScore: 7.45 AvgScanTime: 3.74 sec Spam: 6179 Autolearn: 680 AvgScore: 12.44 AvgScanTime: 4.03 sec Ham: 4194 Autolearn: 895 AvgScore: 0.10 AvgScanTime: 3.3

Help with sa-stats

I am trying to install Dallas Engelken's version of sa-stats and a rank novice I could use some help... http://www.rulesemporium.com/programs/sa-stats.txt I'm on a VPS with cpanel multiple domains. I installed this into the cgi-bin in my domain (not the primary server domain) and i

RE: SA-STATS on BSD

-Original Message- From: Odhiambo WASHINGTON [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 9:30 AM To: Jean-Paul Natola Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: SA-STATS on BSD * On 08/11/06 19:15 -0500, Jean-Paul Natola wrote: | Hi everyone, | | I've tri

Re: SA-STATS on BSD

* On 08/11/06 19:15 -0500, Jean-Paul Natola wrote: | Hi everyone, | | I've tried on apache and SARE and bsd sites to find the documentation on | installing sa-stats , I have found the the actual sa-stats.pl but I dont | know how to go about installing it on BSD any guidance wou

SA-STATS on BSD

Hi everyone, I've tried on apache and SARE and bsd sites to find the documentation on installing sa-stats , I have found the the actual sa-stats.pl but I dont know how to go about installing it on BSD any guidance would be appreciated. Freebsd 5.4 exim sa 3.1.7 Jean

Re: [OT] Stats up drastically from a year ago.

Chris Santerre wrote: Just for giggles! Keeping exact numbers out of it, here are the stats compared to a year ago: RBL blocks up 3 fold! Spam caught by SA doubled. Legit email traffic also doubled. Whe, what a year! Thanks, Chris Santerre SysAdmin and Spamfighter

[OT] Stats up drastically from a year ago.

Title: [OT] Stats up drastically from a year ago. Just for giggles! Keeping exact numbers out of it, here are the stats compared to a year ago: RBL blocks up 3 fold! Spam caught by SA doubled. Legit email traffic also doubled. Whe, what a year! Thanks, Chris Santerre SysAdmin

RE: Stats of rules ?

ave a tools for know in 24h or 48h > > > if a rules are used or not ? > > > > If you just want to know if the rule is getting hits, you can do a > > simple grep against your maillog file. > > > > For more in-depth stats, try this script: > > > >

Re: Stats of rules ?

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Noc Phibee wrote: > Anyone know if they have a tools for know in 24h or 48h if a rules > are used or not ? Depending on how your SA is set up, you may be able to see the rules that are hit in /var/log/maillog -- John Hardin KA7OHZICQ#15735746http://www.impsec.org/~j

RE: Stats of rules ?

ple grep against your maillog file. For more in-depth stats, try this script: http://www.rulesemporium.com/programs/sa-stats.txt Rename it to sa-stats.pl before you run it. -- Bowie

Stats of rules ?

Hi on my spamassassin server, i use a lot of rules .. personnal and downloaded. Anyone know if they have a tools for know in 24h or 48h if a rules are used or not ? thanks bye

stats on SPAM filtering efficiency

Folks, Does anyone know of a reliable source of info that reports on SPAM filtering efficiency as well as numbers of systems that actually still do NOT employ any form of spam filtering at all? Not too long a go I happened upon some Gartner Group data that indicated that some 60% of mail sy

Re: [Devel-spam] Hash Stats

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote: > How many hits are you getting ? > > Database changed mysql> select count(*) from maillog where > spamreport like '%FUZZY_OCR%' and date = '2006-08-29'; +--+ > | count(*) | +--+ | 385 | +--+ 1 row i

Re: SA logging options wrong uid Debian-exim sa-stats

On Monday 21 August 2006 22:21, Stefan Bauer took the opportunity to say: > iam using Debian with Spamassasin 3.1.1-1 and exim 4.62. > > Iam looking forward to use sa-stats[1] with the stats from spamassasin > from /var/log/exim4/mainlog.log like: > > Aug 21 17:58:51 main

SA logging options wrong uid Debian-exim sa-stats

Hello List, iam using Debian with Spamassasin 3.1.1-1 and exim 4.62. Iam looking forward to use sa-stats[1] with the stats from spamassasin from /var/log/exim4/mainlog.log like: Aug 21 17:58:51 main spamd[4064]: spamd: result: . -1 - AWL,BAYES_00 scantime=2.3,size=5146,user=Debian-exim,uid

Some Ebay stats

This is interesting. This is a list of relays with the From field matching '@ebay.' 202.64.65.129.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer gabriel.its.calpoly.edu. 204.64.65.129.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer email-gateway-michael.its.calpoly.edu. 10.193.98.140.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer ruebert

Re: Spam success stats

Joe Zitnik wrote: Does anyone have a source for statistics on spam victims, ie. the number of people who actually click on the "Remove Me" line, or who "update their banking information", or who actually buy those pencil enlargement pills? Not as such but there was one client who hadn't payed

Spam success stats

Does anyone have a source for statistics on spam victims, ie. the number of people who actually click on the "Remove Me" line, or who "update their banking information", or who actually buy those pencil enlargement pills?

RE: Latest sa-stats from last week

jdow wrote: > From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > jdow wrote: > > > > > > Importune on them to feed you as large a collection of ham and > > > spam as they can, once. Then turn on autolearn, cross your > > > fingers, and put on your flack jacket. > > > > What flack jacket? I have Bayes

Re: Latest sa-stats from last week

From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jdow wrote: From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Michael Monnerie wrote: > > On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 16:18 Bowie Bailey wrote: > > > I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users > > > don't bother to train it. > > > > Another reason for site-wid

Re: Latest sa-stats from last week

ints, and probably filter more SPAM than now? If I look at my personal database, the spam percentage shown in the stats is lower than I'd like, but I wouldn't say it's not accurate. I very rarely see a true false positive or negative with Bayes and I watch my account closel

RE: Latest sa-stats from last week

always SPAM for you, you could give it 4.5 or 5 points, and probably > filter more SPAM than now? If I look at my personal database, the spam percentage shown in the stats is lower than I'd like, but I wouldn't say it's not accurate. I very rarely see a true false positive or negativ

Re: Latest sa-stats from last week

On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2006 17:27 Bowie Bailey wrote: > So you are saying that I should not feed Bayes with the unsolicited > marketing garbage that I get because it looks like something that > could have been requested? If it's a newsletter from a seemingly legit company I don't feed it to bayes.

RE: Latest sa-stats from last week

jdow wrote: > From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Michael Monnerie wrote: > > > On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 16:18 Bowie Bailey wrote: > > > > I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users > > > > don't bother to train it. > > > > > > Another reason for site-wide bayes, I'd say. > > > > I'

RE: Latest sa-stats from last week

Michael Monnerie wrote: > On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 23:01 Bowie Bailey wrote: > > Hmm... If you are training Bayes, and all of your ham is in English, > > then what does Bayes do with the Chinese ham your customers get? > > Nothing. But you won't get a SPAM report from bayes if the e-mail is > chin

Re: Latest sa-stats from last week

From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Michael Monnerie wrote: On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 16:18 Bowie Bailey wrote: > I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users > don't bother to train it. Another reason for site-wide bayes, I'd say. I've considered that, but it won't work in our setup. T

Re: Latest sa-stats from last week

From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jdow wrote: From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > TOP SPAM RULES FIRED > > > > > > > > RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES > > > >%OFMAIL %OFSPA

Re: Latest sa-stats from last week

On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 23:01 Bowie Bailey wrote: > Hmm... If you are training Bayes, and all of your ham is in English, > then what does Bayes do with the Chinese ham your customers get? Nothing. But you won't get a SPAM report from bayes if the e-mail is chinese and you never feed chinese lang

RE: Latest sa-stats from last week

Michael Monnerie wrote: > On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 17:14 Bowie Bailey wrote: > > I've considered that, but it won't work in our setup. This box > > scans our internal email as well as all of our customer's email. > > Since we are in an entirely different line of business from our > > customers, wh

Re[2]: Latest sa-stats from last week

Hello Rick, Monday, May 8, 2006, 4:07:53 PM, you wrote: > Interesting, my Razor stats show a MUCH higher false positive rate, so > much so that I had to lower the scores dramatically. > Spam Ham > 1 RAZOR2_CHECK

Re: Latest sa-stats from last week

"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/09/2006 10:27:27 AM: > | > Holy spoo! Bayes can do MUCH better than that! > | > {O.O} > | > | I'm sure it can, but I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users > | don't bother to train it. > | > > I'm in a similar situation as Bowie.  I had to turn of Baye

RE: Latest sa-stats from last week

Title: RE: Latest sa-stats from last week > | > I'm in a similar situation as Bowie.  I had to turn of Bayes > | > as mail that was obviously spam was getting a Bayes_0 pulling > | > the # back down under the threshold. > | > > | > | so why not just s

Re: Latest sa-stats from last week

| > I'm in a similar situation as Bowie. I had to turn of Bayes | > as mail that was obviously spam was getting a Bayes_0 pulling | > the # back down under the threshold. | > | | so why not just score BAYES_00, BAYES_20, etc all at at 0... and keep | BAYES_99, BAYES_95, etc scoring what they s

RE: Latest sa-stats from last week

> -Original Message- > From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:27 > To: Bowie Bailey; users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Latest sa-stats from last week > > | > Holy spoo! Bayes can do MUCH better than that! > | > {O.O

Re: Latest sa-stats from last week

| > Holy spoo! Bayes can do MUCH better than that! | > {O.O} | | I'm sure it can, but I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users | don't bother to train it. | I'm in a similar situation as Bowie. I had to turn of Bayes as mail that was obviously spam was getting a Bayes_0 pulling the # back do

  1   2   3   4   >