On Sat, 07 Oct 2006, Jo Rhett wrote:
2. SA's self-registering stuff should be disabled - Bayes filters need
to know what the human that is to receive the messages considers
spam, not what a machine second-guesses.
Thanks. I knew most of this, which is why I wasn't going to bother
Jo,
Nope. I'm coming off of using CanIt, which does a damn good job. Since
I can't afford the pro version for my personal machine, I was just
checking out how good the open source interfaces have gotten. (besides
spamassassin, which is obviously the core of CanIt's rules too)
...
I do
Mark Martinec wrote:
As an experiment it is valid to try bare-bones SA, although
for production use most sites use some subset of SARE rules,
and with more recent versions of SA the use of sa-update is
very much recommended, as it adds a couple of very useful
last-minute additions or fixes to
Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I keep seeing spam messages with negative scores, like this:
No, score=-0.317 tagged_above=-1.99 required=4.01
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.2, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.708,
HTML_30_40=0.374, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.001,
Gary V wrote:
It's sad, but we are at war with the spammers and the virus writers
and the adware companies and the hackers and the spyware writers.
Their tactics change on a daily basis, and so must ours. War often
requires effort, sorry.
I know that. Which is why I keep pointing out that
Matthias Andree wrote:
Take this with a grain of salt, I'm biased (being the bogofilter
co-maintainer):
IMHO the SpamAssassin Bayes stuff should be disabled -- for various reasons:
1. is that it causes a major performance issue, even on lightly loaded
Pentium D and Xeon 2.8 equipped
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 09:58:49AM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
Matthias Andree wrote:
Take this with a grain of salt, I'm biased (being the bogofilter
co-maintainer):
IMHO the SpamAssassin Bayes stuff should be disabled -- for various reasons:
1. is that it causes a major performance
Jo wrote:
Gary V wrote:
It's sad, but we are at war with the spammers and the virus writers
and the adware companies and the hackers and the spyware writers.
Their tactics change on a daily basis, and so must ours. War often
requires effort, sorry.
I know that. Which is why I keep
Jo,
Now, the spammers are putting lots of junk text in their spam and
polluting the databases to such an extend that Bayes is much less useful.
So I guess I'm saying that I have very little interest in spending the
effort to retrain a new Bayes database, and none of my other users are
Okay, so I used to deal with Bayes quite a bit. I spent a very long
time specially training my Bayes database, and it seemed to work.
Now, the spammers are putting lots of junk text in their spam and
polluting the databases to such an extend that Bayes is much less
useful.
So I guess
On Oct 6, 2006, at 1:26 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
I hardly ever need to train bayes (1000 users, an organization, not
an ISP),
I just feed it half a dozen spam messages per week that got
through. It is
essential that your other rules are good, including dcc, razor,
uribls,
sa-update
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:44 -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
Now, how can I prevent Bayes from SUBTRACTING 2.6 from every message
short of completely disabling it?
These lines in /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
(or whatever path your local.cf is in) and then amavisd reload
should do it I think:
Jo wrote:
Also, are there any commands to see what bayes knows about, thinks
about, etc?
This one can (at least) show number of learned spam and ham:
su vscan -c 'sa-learn --dump magic'
0.000 0 158089 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 19527 0
Jo wrote:
I really, really don't want to be rude but who are you replying to?
You apparently didn't read a single word of what I wrote above.
Really, not trying to be rude -- just can't follow this thread.
On Fri, October 6, 2006 11:01 am, Gary V wrote:
It is my opinion that only people who
Jo wrote:
I really, really don't want to be rude but who are you replying to?
You apparently didn't read a single word of what I wrote above.
Really, not trying to be rude -- just can't follow this thread.
On Fri, October 6, 2006 11:01 am, Gary V wrote:
It is my opinion that only people who
jrhett wrote:
Now, how can I prevent Bayes from SUBTRACTING 2.6 from every message
short of completely disabling it?
adjust scores, here are likely current settings:
This I knew already. I was questioning if doing so would make bayes
invalid enough that I should simply disable Bayes
I keep seeing spam messages with negative scores, like this:
No, score=-0.317 tagged_above=-1.99 required=4.01
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.2, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.708,
HTML_30_40=0.374, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.001,
NO_RECEIVED=-0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
So I'm
Jo wrote:
I keep seeing spam messages with negative scores, like this:
No, score=-0.317 tagged_above=-1.99 required=4.01
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.2, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.708,
HTML_30_40=0.374, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.001,
NO_RECEIVED=-0.001,
Gary V wrote:
This is a SpamAssassin issue, but generally it appears your Bayes
could use some manual training:
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.1.x/dist/doc/sa-learn.html
Okay, so I used to deal with Bayes quite a bit. I spent a very long
time specially training my Bayes database, and
Jo wrote:
Gary V wrote:
This is a SpamAssassin issue, but generally it appears your Bayes
could use some manual training:
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.1.x/dist/doc/sa-learn.html
Okay, so I used to deal with Bayes quite a bit. I spent a very long
time specially training my Bayes
20 matches
Mail list logo
