Can someone please explain to me why, if an email is flagged as spam by
Sniffer, I shouldn't just delete it outright? Are there instances where
Sniffer is wrong? Or is this the way you all use it already?
Reason I ask is that I have Sniffer setup with a weight of 10...and I hold
messages
If you delete, you should delete based on achieving a minimum weight
accumulated. Sniffer on occasion may detect something as a false positive.
For example, it may misinterpret a legitimate e-mail as Spam with an
attachment based on conversion of the attachment to characters and a series
On 14 Apr 2005 at 8:50, Joey Proulx wrote:
Hi Joey,
Can someone please explain to me why, if an email is flagged as spam
by Sniffer, I shouldn't just delete it outright? Are there instances
where Sniffer is wrong? Or is this the way you all use it already?
Well from my perspective the beauty
- Original Message -
From: Joey Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can someone please explain to me why, if an email is flagged as spam by
Sniffer, I shouldn't just delete it outright? Are there instances where
Sniffer is wrong? Or is this the way you all use it already?
Reason I ask is that
Joey Proulx writes:
Can someone please explain to me why, if an email is flagged as spam by
Sniffer, I shouldn't just delete it outright? Are there instances where
Sniffer is wrong? Or is this the way you all use it already?
A couple of things Sniffer is very effective but not perfect close.
On Thursday, April 14, 2005, 8:50:12 AM, Joey wrote:
JP Can someone please explain to me why, if an email is flagged as spam by
JP Sniffer, I shouldn't just delete it outright? Are there instances where
JP Sniffer is wrong? Or is this the way you all use it already?
JP Reason I ask is that I
Title: Message
The Space was the issue. Added the "-" and all is
well.
- Original Message -
From:
Matt
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 4:37
PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Something
new with v 2.0.6
Fred,Those are all
I certainly wouldn't change my Sniffer weighting based on a 419 scam. The
419/Lotteries tend to be some of the more difficult spams to catch. Many of
them come from legitate mail servers so they won't be on any blacklists and
they won't score on technical tests. In your case I'd bet the -5 came
We just started something I've been thinking about
for a while: Negative weight tests to offset specific test failures for
well-known domains. For example, a large
number of false positives we see are from Earthlink, Mindspring, Sprint,
Verizon, etc.
Now you may be thinking, of course,
This is pretty interesting, but one
question What is your hold weight set to? It seems that you are assigning a huge
negative value for the first test, and much smaller for the other two, nay
insight as to how you came up with these values? We are running into some of the same problems
I myself have pondered why I am even running the
RFCI-noabuse and RFCI-nopostmaster test.
The NoAbuse misfired 23.6% of the
time.
The NoPostmaster misfired 12.7% of the
time.
Due to the underperformance, I weight each test 5
(hold at 200).
Thetest failures are who's who of ISP /
webmail
Darin Cox wrote:
Hi Darin -
We just started something I've been thinking about for a while:
Negative weight tests to offset specific test failures for well-
known
domains. For example, a large number of false positives we see are
from Earthlink, Mindspring, Sprint, Verizon, etc.
Well here
Sorry...should've mentioned our weighting scale. We
hold at 100 and delete at 300.
Those were just examples, however. The point
is to weight them exactly opposite of your current weight for those
tests.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Greg
Birdsall
To:
Well you make a good point on the value of NOABUSE
and NOPOSTMASTER. NOABUSE hits on about 18% of incoming mail, while
NOPOSTMASTER hits on about 10%. Most of the false positives we see from
them can be eliminated with these filters, extending their usefulnessso
there's still value in
14 matches
Mail list logo
