Title: Message
Correct.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-----Original Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Danny Klopfer
Sent: Sunday,
November 09, 2003 5:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [0] RE:
[Declude.JunkMail] Experience with Statistical Filtering [IMail 8.02]
I just wanted to confirm that the
Statistical filtering is after Declude does it's thing so letting IMail score
for spam does no good for sorting in Declude?
-----Original Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kami Razvan
Sent: Monday,
September 08, 2003 3:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [0] RE:
[Declude.JunkMail] Experience with Statistical Filtering [IMail 8.02]
Interesting... I sure will.
So I am imagining things... has happened before. I
will try to add up the weights and see - I will review the archives now..
so perhaps that explains why the headers show up at the
bottom of the header and not at the top like the IP4R tests of IMail.
thanks for the info... that sure was a case of false sense
of security.
-----Original Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Landry
Sent: Sunday,
September 07, 2003 4:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
Experience with Statistical Filtering [IMail 8.02]
Hmmm, how is it possible for Declude JunkMail to track the
statistical filtering header when statistical filtering does not happen
until after Declude has finished its message processing and handed the message
back to IMail for delivery?
Search the archives, there was a discussion between Sandy
Whiteman and I a few months back about this.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, September
07, 2003 12:47 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail]
Experience with Statistical Filtering [IMail 8.02]
Just wondering if others have experimented with the
Statistical Filtering of IMail. I am simply sharing what I have seen so
far since last week.
I started testing it last week and so far it is showing
good results. Several instances it was enough weight to block a spam that
would have otherwise gone through with our filters.
I simply enabled Statistical Filtering and chose Insert
Header option.
then added the following to our header filter:
HEADERS
3
CONTAINS
X-IMAIL-SPAM-STATISTICS: 0.9
HEADERS
5
CONTAINS
X-IMAIL-SPAM-STATISTICS: 1.
So far anything with 1 has been spam and several 0.9's are
seen that all have been spam. Basically I have not seen a false positive
with the above. I may increase their weights.. but need more time to
test.
Anyone else has any experience?
|
