http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4694
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-21 12:32 ---
net and metalog, as expected. ;)
i filed a bug report on gentoo bugzilla. on the forum there is another one who
has the same bug.
i'll keep you updated. :)
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4695
Summary: HTML_OBFUSCATE FP on br/ tags
Product: Spamassassin
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Platform: Other
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4695
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-21 14:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=3261)
-- (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3261action=view)
sample email that triggers FP of
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4688
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4695
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-21 15:57 ---
does xhtml 1.0 require a space after a standalone tag, or is it just good
practice? br / vs. br/
# perl -e 'use CGI; print CGI-br()';
br /
replacing br/
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4696
Summary: tcp timeout - SpamdForkScaling.pm line 195
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 3.1.0
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3549
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-21 17:03 ---
(In reply to comment #38)
We're certainly interested in this topic, but if a domain is used at 3, 4 and
5
levels, would that mean we'd need to list
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 11:07:50AM +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
version 0.80 of MAIL::Domainkeys makes this error, using sa 3.1.0 on gentoo
here, is this a known bug ?
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4623
the Mail::DomainKeys::Message API changed between when the plugin
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4697
Summary: Plugin detection spews mail logs
Product: Spamassassin
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4697
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 10:29:25PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote:
It only happens on SARE rules, and only on specific SARE files.
Nobody within SARE can reproduce it.
Really? I can reproduce this by putting in the single line:
meta SARE_OBFU_OBLIGATION 0
This structure has worked
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4697
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-21 18:04 ---
See Bug #4631
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4651
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-21 18:07 ---
Another issue to check for is if you're using an integration tool such as
MailScanner, make sure it isn't timing SA out and killing it when it tries to
Really? I can reproduce this by putting in the single line:
meta SARE_OBFU_OBLIGATION 0
'meta RULE 0' does not lint, whereas 'meta RULE ()' does. so maybe
that's the quickest fix. are these zero'd metas just left in the
ruleset for backwards compatibility?
'meta RULE ()'
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4695
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-21 18:15 ---
Dallas: It's not required. Just checked 'http://www.nwo.no/~runevi/test.xhtml'
which doesn't include a space with www.w3.org - and it validated.
In other
Dallas L. Engelken writes:
Really? I can reproduce this by putting in the single line:
meta SARE_OBFU_OBLIGATION 0
'meta RULE 0' does not lint, whereas 'meta RULE ()' does. so maybe
that's the quickest fix. are these zero'd metas just left in the
ruleset for backwards
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4695
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-21 18:31 ---
it's not required, and purely there for backwards compatibility; in fact, br/
is slightly more correct XHTML.
--- You are receiving this mail because:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:27:52AM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
Either way though, I do see the problem -- could someone open a bug at the
BZ so we can decide what the correct way to do this should be
and possibly add support for it to the engine?
Is this something that we need to solve? Rules
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 12:50 -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:27:52AM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
Either way though, I do see the problem -- could someone open a bug at the
BZ so we can decide what the correct way to do this should be
and possibly add support for it to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:27:52AM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
Either way though, I do see the problem -- could someone open a bug at the
BZ so we can decide what the correct way to do this should be
and possibly add
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 10:39:41PM +1300, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
Are you saying that there is no advantage in accuracy over using pure
NaiveBayes, but you prefer to use SA-Train because it is simpler than
ongoing incremental learning and the resulting model is smaller?
Well, the main reason
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(using dev as a backup channel.)
Hey Fred -- I don't know what's going on here -- looks like your secondary
MX can't talk to the primary? anyway, fyi.
this is an old mail from last week, so can probably be ignored at
this stage anyway ;)
- --j.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander K. Seewald writes:
I've tested just training the NB model within SA, and
to some extent it works, but it is unclear how far you can go with
that... at some point it is likely to break down, and rule weight
have to be adapted.
By the
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 01:02:13PM -0500, Dallas Engelken wrote:
meta SYMBOLIC_TEST_NAME boolean expression
and 'meta TEST 0' follows those guidelines.
the problem with deleting a rule is if other meta's depended on that
rule, your lint would fail and your RDJ would fail to update. the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 01:02:13PM -0500, Dallas Engelken wrote:
an easy solution would be to change the code from:
if (my $result = ( $self-{'tests_already_hit'}-{'__HTML_LENGTH_384'}
Hello Theo,
Monday, November 21, 2005, 8:56:16 AM, you wrote:
TVD On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 10:29:25PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote:
It only happens on SARE rules, and only on specific SARE files.
Nobody within SARE can reproduce it.
TVD Really? I can reproduce this by putting in the single
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4698
Summary: meta TEST 0 doesn't work
Product: Spamassassin
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Platform: Other
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 07:04:50PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote:
TVD meta statements aren't the same as if/then constructs? ;)
Good enough explanation, though it doesn't explain why others who use
the rules don't get the error.
It could very well be something perl-version related. My FC
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 10:38:28PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
It could very well be something perl-version related. My FC machine is 5.8.5,
OSX is 5.8.6. I can reproduce it on 5.8.3.
I sent the mail before I was done... I can reproduce this, via:
perl -we 'if (my $t=0) {}'
on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 10:38:28PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
It could very well be something perl-version related. My FC machine is
5.8.5,
OSX is 5.8.6. I can reproduce it on 5.8.3.
I sent the mail before I
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4698
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|Undefined |3.1.1
Hello Warren,
Sunday, November 20, 2005, 11:59:37 PM, you wrote:
WT Thanks, all patches needed for 3.0.5 have been committed.
WT In the next few days I'm looking at options for rescoring 3.0.5 because
WT the score used there are more than a year old.
WT Since it seems nobody is interested in
Hello Warren,
There was also a recent discussion about using SVM scoring techniques, and
someone posted a tool to do that. I believe the claim was that it produced
reasonable scoring with less effort than the normal method. Perhaps that
could be used here?
Loren
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
hi,
On 11/21/05 Theo Van Dinter wrote:
I opened a ticket about it:
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4698
iiuc, this was to cure the current 'meta 0' prob? or did i misunderstand? i
know that the
'philosophy' discuss
On 11/22/05 5:14 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
I believe the claim was that it produced
reasonable scoring with less effort than the normal method
The less effort is in the procedure to gather the scoring copora from a
group of users. It's too late to consider that now. Warren's biggest
problem is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OpenMacNews writes:
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 10:38:28PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
It could very well be something perl-version related. My FC machine is
5.8.5,
OSX is 5.8.6. I can reproduce it on 5.8.3.
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sidney Markowitz writes:
On 11/22/05 5:14 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
I believe the claim was that it produced
reasonable scoring with less effort than the normal method
The less effort is in the procedure to gather the scoring copora from a
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4698
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-22 05:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=3262)
-- (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3262action=view)
suggested patch
did a test run. timing was
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 08:22:50PM -0800, OpenMacNews wrote:
iiuc, this was to cure the current 'meta 0' prob? or did i misunderstand? i
know that the
'philosophy' discuss re:how best to deprecate rules is to continue ...
Yes and yes.
with build of SA r348075 (incl this fix, yes?), --lint
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
hi,
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
...
No. r348079 and later will have it though. :)
k.
with r348081 on OSX10.4.3/Perl5.8.7, --lint on a 'full deck' of RDJ, ala:
TRUSTED_RULESETS=TRIPWIRE SARE_REDIRECT_POST300 SARE_EVILNUMBERS0
SARE_EVILNUMBERS1
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 08:38:05PM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
well, it's more than that. with a small number of corpora, the
scores will be over-optimised for those people. It's a tricky
problem
I've actually been thinking about this a bit. Our normal mass-check runs
are heavily
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 08:38:05PM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
well, it's more than that. with a small number of corpora, the
scores will be over-optimised for those people. It's a tricky
problem
I've actually been thinking about this a bit. Our normal
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4698
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-22 08:04 ---
+1
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Doc Schneider writes:
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 08:38:05PM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
well, it's more than that. with a small number of corpora, the
scores will be over-optimised for those people. It's a tricky
44 matches
Mail list logo
