Re: OT - Re: DNFTEC - was My apologies
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023, Grant Taylor via users wrote:
On 8/5/23 6:42 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Yes given that he is
Sorry, I as asking for differences between Energy Creatures and Trolls.
I agree with your advice about the particular EC / T.
I'm still trying to understand the conceptual difference between an EC and a
T or if they are synonyms for the same type of individual.
For the most part they can be pretty much interchangeable but slight shading:
EC -> alignment: neutral/chaotic
T -> alignment: evil
IE an EC can be unpredictable and occasionally positive but at a cost
T is pretty predictability undesirable
Just my U$0.02, YMMV
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-05491256 Seamans Center, 103 S Capitol St.
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
Re: OT - Re: DNFTEC - was My apologies
On 8/5/23 6:42 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote: Yes given that he is Sorry, I as asking for differences between Energy Creatures and Trolls. I agree with your advice about the particular EC / T. I'm still trying to understand the conceptual difference between an EC and a T or if they are synonyms for the same type of individual. -- Grant. . . .
Re: OT - Re: DNFTEC - was My apologies
On Sat, 2023-08-05 at 14:06 -0500, Grant Taylor via users wrote: > On 8/5/23 1:51 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > REDACTED is the definition of something I learned decades ago as an > > energy > > creature. > > Is there anything to differentiate an Energy Creature from a Troll? > Yes given that he is, invariably in my experience, at worst abusive and never less than condescending in his tone and seldom if ever offers useful and relevant advice, this makes him somebody who is best ignored. So, add him to your most-unwelcome list if you maintain one: otherwise create a local rule that drops his messages straight in the discards bin. To put it another way: if you don't like his attitude or find his advice irrelevant to any problems with unwanted mail that you've received, write that 'unconditionally discard messages from him' rule, add it to your private ruleset and be sure to update it if his headers or address should change in future. Martin
Re: My apologies
> On Aug 5, 2023, at 3:09 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote: > > > >> On Aug 5, 2023, at 2:51 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: >> >> Reindl is the definition of something I learned decades ago as an energy >> creature. >> >> DNFTEC is an acronym to live by. Suggested reading: >> http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=6284 > > You might enjoy this clip from "What We Do In the Shadows", which tells the > story of a house full of vampires living in Staten Island. Colin Robinson, > featured in this clip, is a special vampire: he's an "Energy Vampire" who > sometimes needs to "feed" on the internet... > > C Oops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A7BLMA1LIw C > >> >> KAM >> >> On Sat, Aug 5, 2023, 13:24 Grant Taylor via users >> mailto:users@spamassassin.apache.org>> wrote: >>> On 8/5/23 8:04 AM, Ralph Seichter wrote: >>> > Well, that is what local mail killfiles are for. The world is sadly >>> > full of morons, but one does not necessarily have to accept mail >>> > from them. >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> The catch is that he keeps tripping up people that have not had the ... >>> experience of dealing with him and thus have not ... quieted him yet. >>> >>> >>> >>> Grant. . . . >
Re: My apologies
> On Aug 5, 2023, at 2:51 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > Reindl is the definition of something I learned decades ago as an energy > creature. > > DNFTEC is an acronym to live by. Suggested reading: > http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=6284 You might enjoy this clip from "What We Do In the Shadows", which tells the story of a house full of vampires living in Staten Island. Colin Robinson, featured in this clip, is a special vampire: he's an "Energy Vampire" who sometimes needs to "feed" on the internet... C > > KAM > > On Sat, Aug 5, 2023, 13:24 Grant Taylor via users > mailto:users@spamassassin.apache.org>> wrote: >> On 8/5/23 8:04 AM, Ralph Seichter wrote: >> > Well, that is what local mail killfiles are for. The world is sadly >> > full of morons, but one does not necessarily have to accept mail >> > from them. >> >> Agreed. >> >> The catch is that he keeps tripping up people that have not had the ... >> experience of dealing with him and thus have not ... quieted him yet. >> >> >> >> Grant. . . .
i will just report spamassassin trunc breaks amavisd-new
going back to 3.4.6 as now until 4.0.1 is released, in amavisd logs hits is always - with imho means spamtest is skipped, can you verify sa trunk does work still with amavisd ?
OT - Re: DNFTEC - was My apologies
On 8/5/23 1:51 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
REDACTED is the definition of something I learned decades ago as an energy
creature.
Is there anything to differentiate an Energy Creature from a Troll?
The tricky thing about this particular ${ENTITY} is that they are
seemingly on topic and seem to have a significantly different opinion
about something than their target.
As such, it's too easy for a target to be drawn into what they probably
initially think as a legitimate technical discussion with someone of a
differing opinion or different experience.
I personally think that it is good to understand differing opinions /
experiences. I find that when I take the time to understand them, even
if I don't agree with them, that I usually end up learning something,
often reconfirming my opinion, but sometimes showing me that there might
be a better way, or at least something that warrants further
investigation / learning.
So, open minded people like myself seem to be easier prey for an
${ENTITY} like you describe.
DNFTEC is an acronym to live by. Suggested reading:
http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=6284
Intersting.
Copied here for other's convenience.
--8<--
Q: SOME PERSON HAS POSTED SOMETHING REALLY RUDE IN RESPONSE TO ME, OR IS
PICKING ON ME. WHAT DO I DO?
A: There is a certain type of being that's all too common in the online
world. I call them "Energy Creatures," a term I first heard on one of
the commercial services. Energy Creatures are a bizarre lifeform which
grow and feed off of the negative energy generated by others.
Energy Creatures' favorite feeding tactic is to try to hurt people's
feelings or get them angry. Then they can feed off the pain and anger
they've generated. Their second favorite tactic is to hurt one person or
group's feelings while gathering the sympathy of others. That way, when
the injured party lashes back, others will jump to the Energy Creature's
defense. Then the Energy Creature need do nothing except feed off the
attention and the negative energy generated by the people fighting.
We'll never be completely rid of these noxious beings, but we can do a
lot to keep the herds under control by remembering this simple formula:
DNFTEC. This stands for Do Not Feed The Energy Creature. If you
encounter such a beast, your best bet is usually to say absolutely
nothing. No matter how hard it is, sitting on your fingers and posting
NOTHING in response is usually the best bet.
Remember, if you fight them, they just get stronger. If you ignore
them, eventually they weaken, wither, and go away. This may be hard to
remember, but in the long run, that's exactly what you need to do. The
temptation to fight back is incredible, but remember, fighting them only
makes them stronger. Believe it.
-->8--
--
Grant. . . .
Re: My apologies
Reindl is the definition of something I learned decades ago as an energy creature. DNFTEC is an acronym to live by. Suggested reading: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=6284 KAM On Sat, Aug 5, 2023, 13:24 Grant Taylor via users < users@spamassassin.apache.org> wrote: > On 8/5/23 8:04 AM, Ralph Seichter wrote: > > Well, that is what local mail killfiles are for. The world is sadly > > full of morons, but one does not necessarily have to accept mail > > from them. > > Agreed. > > The catch is that he keeps tripping up people that have not had the ... > experience of dealing with him and thus have not ... quieted him yet. > > > > Grant. . . . >
PSA: ${HE} is now using a new email address.
On 8/5/23 12:23 PM, Grant Taylor via users wrote:
The catch is that he keeps tripping up people that have not had the ...
experience of dealing with him and thus have not ... quieted him yet.
For those of you that have started filtering someone -- who I'm not
going to name -- ${HE} has started using a Gmail address that is his
first name dot his last name at gmail dot com.
Grant. . . .
Re: My apologies
On 8/5/23 8:04 AM, Ralph Seichter wrote: Well, that is what local mail killfiles are for. The world is sadly full of morons, but one does not necessarily have to accept mail from them. Agreed. The catch is that he keeps tripping up people that have not had the ... experience of dealing with him and thus have not ... quieted him yet. Grant. . . .
Re: My apologies
* Grant Taylor via users: > He /is/ blocked from from sending messages to / through the mailing > list. This is also what happened to him on the Postfix mailing list, and rightly so. It has been many years. > Here's the thing. He is sending his reply /around/ the list -- > apparently -- so that it looks like his messages came from the list. Well, that is what local mail killfiles are for. The world is sadly full of morons, but one does not necessarily have to accept mail from them. -Ralph
Re: Really hard-to-filter spam
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 08:38:24AM -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote: > It was a typo, sorry. I have a cron job that uses --spam against the spam > folder, and --ham against the ham folder. I just copied and pasted poorly. > This is the actual script for my account: > > [thomas.cameron@mail-east ~]$ cat bin/spamcheck > #!/bin/bash > sa-learn --progress --spam --mbox /home/thomas.cameron/mail/INBOX/spam > sa-learn --progress --ham --mbox /home/thomas.cameron/mail/INBOX/ham > > Bayes tests for other messages, like the one you sent me, looks like this: > > -- > Return-Path: > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on > mail-east.camerontech.com > X-Spam-Level: > X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, > DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE, > SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham > autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 > -- > > But messages flagged as spam look like this: > > -- > Return-Path: > > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on > mail-east.camerontech.com > X-Spam-Flag: YES > X-Spam-Level: > X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=36.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_99,BAYES_999, > DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FROM_FMBLA_NEWDOM, > FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD,FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD_FP,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, > HTML_MESSAGE,PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100,RAZOR2_CHECK, > RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RDNS_NONE,SH_HELO_DBL,SH_HELO_ZRD_FRESH, > SH_ZRD_HEADERS_FRESH,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE, > URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_ZRD shortcircuit=no autolearn=spam > autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 > -- > > The previous email I copied headers from as an example was just a bad > example. Usually Bayes is /pretty/ accurate on my system. I only used that > one because it was a message which made it through SpamAssassin. I was > trying to demonstrate that the checks were not failing, as suggested in an > earlier comment. > > Thanks for catching that, though. I have made silly mistakes like that so I > appreciate you checking me. In that case, I think I can only offer some general suggestions that I personally follow. I have the autolearn function completely disabled. In my experience, if you have a decent training corpus of known ham and known spam, autolearn doesn't really add anything. Like yours, my bayes results are usually quite accurate. At this point, I only train messages that are actually false positives or false negatives. I can't say for sure how effective this is, but my intuition is that by only training on "hard" messages (meaning ones that the non-bayes SA rules couldn't take care of on their own), I'm keeping the bayes engine focused on the most important messages to classify correctly. Your above spample has such a high score, my mail server would have rejected that message at SMTP time even if it had triggered BAYES_00. I wouldn't bother training such a message; the rest of the rules have it covered. Another thing to note is that spam tends to change over time. Having really old spams in your bayes DB could be diluting its effectiveness by having it look for signs that the current crop of spams don't show. It might be worth starting fresh with an empty bayes db and training just a few hundred of your most recent hams and spams. And finally, if there's something consistent about the messages, don't be afraid to write a manual rule. I have a few special rules in my configs that alter the bayes scoring based on other aspects of the messages. --Sean
