On 01/27, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Not quite sure why 3.3.0 would be different from 3.3.1+2 would be
different, but the reason we haven't had any stable branch rules
published in a while is that we haven't had enough *recent* spam
submitted. Last nights cron job says:
HAM: 188008 (15
- Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/2/2011 5:25 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Spam to live accounts strongly preferred, human reviewed by
trained
monkeys. Emphasis on trained. ;) Some crap like backscatter should
be
filtered from the trap data, if possible, and trap
On 2/2/2011 11:52 PM, João Gouveia wrote:
Thanks for the clear specs Warren, that helps ;-)
We shall try to do it like that.
I still need to setup a proper environment for this. Hopefully on this next
weekend.
Saw my previous post about spamassassin headers and the importance of
reuse?
2011/2/3 Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com:
On 2/2/2011 11:52 PM, João Gouveia wrote:
Thanks for the clear specs Warren, that helps ;-)
We shall try to do it like that.
I still need to setup a proper environment for this. Hopefully on this
next weekend.
Saw my previous post about
On 2/3/2011 1:02 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
I think there's probably quite a few existing mass-check submitters
who are in the same boat, actually...
--j.
And that is a serious problem.
We have a similar problem with accurately measuring network rules that
are not yet part of the production
2011/2/2 Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com:
On 2/1/2011 1:02 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Yikes indeed.
Maybe Joao should answer these himself...
Given the numbers, is that purely trap driven? Is there a legion human
users manually verifying the spam?
What exactly does filter
- Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
SPAM: 51330 (15 required)
Joao Gouveia will soon be requesting an account to join the
nightly
masscheck. He has a significant quantity of spam, and hopefully
much
of it is European language so it should add to our
On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 02:40 +, João Gouveia wrote:
- Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
Given the numbers, is that purely trap driven? Is there a legion human
users manually verifying the spam?
Can't really go into much detail (unrelated to Spamassassin), but there
On 2/2/2011 5:25 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Spam to live accounts strongly preferred, human reviewed by trained
monkeys. Emphasis on trained. ;) Some crap like backscatter should be
filtered from the trap data, if possible, and trap volume kept lower --
best done by random sampling, rather
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 01/26/2011 06:48 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
SPAM: 51330 (15 required)
Joao Gouveia will soon be requesting an account to join the nightly
masscheck. He has a significant quantity of spam, and hopefully much of it
is European
On 2/1/2011 5:44 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 01/26/2011 06:48 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
SPAM: 51330 (15 required)
Joao Gouveia will soon be requesting an account to join the nightly
masscheck. He has a significant quantity of spam, and
SPAM: 51330 (15 required)
Joao Gouveia will soon be requesting an account to join the nightly
masscheck. He has a significant quantity of spam, and hopefully much
of it is European language so it should add to our diversity.
I wonder how scoring will be affected if his
On 2/1/2011 1:02 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Yikes indeed.
Maybe Joao should answer these himself...
Given the numbers, is that purely trap driven? Is there a legion human
users manually verifying the spam?
What exactly does filter duplicates mean? If that includes identical
payload sent
On 01/26/2011 06:48 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Not quite sure why 3.3.0 would be different from 3.3.1+2 would be
different, but the reason we haven't had any stable branch rules
published in a while is that we haven't had enough *recent* spam
submitted. Last nights cron job says:
HAM: 188008
On 1/31/2011 11:40 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 01/26/2011 06:48 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Not quite sure why 3.3.0 would be different from 3.3.1+2 would be
different, but the reason we haven't had any stable branch rules
published in a while is that we haven't had enough *recent* spam
ah, my apologies -- I'd forgotten about that. As the bug notes, we
never completed instructions to reliably push an update, so I'm not
really sure what the correct approach is
--j.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:02, Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/19/2011 11:58 AM, Justin
On 1/26/2011 6:48 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 26/01/2011 10:12 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/26/2011 5:39 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Just came up on the users list. Escalating. ;) The facts:
1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text 1052462
2.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org
On 1/26/2011 7:29 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
OK, found the cause. Somebody broke it by manually changing the 3.3.0
update version in DNS to point at 1061118 which is a 3.4.0 version (and
not necessarily compatible with 3.3.0!). This is seriously bad.
I won't point fingers, but here's the
On 01/19/2011 11:58 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
ssh spamassassin.zones.apache.org
cd /home/updatesd/svn/spamassassin/build/mkupdates
[svn up appropriately]
sudo -u updatesd ./update-rules-3.3 3.3
see build/README for full details.
These were JM's
On 27/01/2011 7:02 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 01/19/2011 11:58 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
ssh spamassassin.zones.apache.org
cd /home/updatesd/svn/spamassassin/build/mkupdates
[svn up appropriately]
sudo -u updatesd ./update-rules-3.3 3.3
see build/README for full details.
These
On 27/01/2011 6:14 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 1/26/2011 6:48 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 26/01/2011 10:12 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/26/2011 5:39 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Just came up on the users list. Escalating. ;) The facts:
1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org
On 01/27/2011 12:40 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
HAM: 188008 (15 required)
SPAM: 51330 (15 required)
Insufficient spam corpus to generate scores; aborting.
How recent is recent?
Ham: 72 months
Spam: 2 months
Daryl
Would it be too harmful to expand it to 3-4 months temporarily?
Just came up on the users list. Escalating. ;) The facts:
1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text 1052462
2.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text 1052462
Rule update tarball available on mirrors. 4 weeks old revision from
trunk.
0.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive
On 1/26/2011 5:39 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Just came up on the users list. Escalating. ;) The facts:
1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text 1052462
2.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text 1052462
Rule update tarball available on mirrors. 4 weeks old revision from
On 26/01/2011 10:12 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/26/2011 5:39 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Just came up on the users list. Escalating. ;) The facts:
1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text 1052462
2.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text 1052462
Rule update tarball
On 26/01/2011 11:48 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 26/01/2011 10:12 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/26/2011 5:39 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Just came up on the users list. Escalating. ;) The facts:
1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text 1052462
2.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org
Corrected manual procedure... the at job needs to be run as updatesd:
On 27/01/2011 12:29 AM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Going forward... we, probably me, need to get an automated way to push
some sort of emergency rule update.
The current manually steps would be:
- un-tar an existing STABLE
27 matches
Mail list logo
