[Bug 6864] New: Excessive score (6.1) from FROM_MISSP_URI, FROM_MISSP_EH_MATCH, TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP

2012-11-09 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6864 Priority: P2 Bug ID: 6864 Assignee: dev@spamassassin.apache.org Summary: Excessive score (6.1) from FROM_MISSP_URI, FROM_MISSP_EH_MATCH, TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP

[Bug 6864] Excessive score (6.1) from FROM_MISSP_URI, FROM_MISSP_EH_MATCH, TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP

2012-11-09 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6864 --- Comment #1 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si --- Created attachment 5111 -- https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=5111action=edit sample mail message -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the

Re-use bayes in masscheck?

2012-11-09 Thread darxus
I think these should be added to the rules: reuse BAYES_00 reuse BAYES_05 reuse BAYES_20 reuse BAYES_40 reuse BAYES_50 reuse BAYES_60 reuse BAYES_80 reuse BAYES_95 reuse BAYES_99 Recently playing around a little with bayes stuff, I noticed there is no data for these in

[Bug 6864] Excessive score (6.1) from FROM_MISSP_URI, FROM_MISSP_EH_MATCH, TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP

2012-11-09 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6864 John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

Future of SA's bayes implementation

2012-11-09 Thread darxus
I haven't done as much testing on this as I'd like, but I've gotten away from it, and wanted to get my thoughts in here before I forget them. I have a strong suspicion that SA's bayes implementation sucks. The two major problems, as I see them: 1) Lack of learn-on-fail. 2) Lack of multi-word

[Bug 6864] Excessive score (6.1) from FROM_MISSP_URI, FROM_MISSP_EH_MATCH, TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP

2012-11-09 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6864 --- Comment #3 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si --- Granted it's valid, but it's apparently very common in spam generated by sloppy tools and not common in mail from well-written MUAs. Could you get the X-Mailer from the

[Bug 6864] Excessive score (6.1) from FROM_MISSP_URI, FROM_MISSP_EH_MATCH, TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP

2012-11-09 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6864 Darxus dar...@chaosreigns.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

Re: Re-use bayes in masscheck?

2012-11-09 Thread Axb
On 11/09/2012 05:58 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: I think these should be added to the rules: reuse BAYES_00 reuse BAYES_05 reuse BAYES_20 reuse BAYES_40 reuse BAYES_50 reuse BAYES_60 reuse BAYES_80 reuse BAYES_95 reuse BAYES_99 Recently playing around a little with bayes stuff, I noticed

Re: Future of SA's bayes implementation

2012-11-09 Thread Axb
On 11/09/2012 06:48 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: I haven't done as much testing on this as I'd like, but I've gotten away from it, and wanted to get my thoughts in here before I forget them. I have a strong suspicion that SA's bayes implementation sucks. The two major problems, as I see

Re: Re-use bayes in masscheck?

2012-11-09 Thread darxus
On 11/09, Axb wrote: On 11/09/2012 05:58 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: I think these should be added to the rules: reuse BAYES_00 reuse BAYES_05 reuse BAYES_20 reuse BAYES_40 reuse BAYES_50 reuse BAYES_60 reuse BAYES_80 reuse BAYES_95 reuse BAYES_99 Recently playing around a

Re: Future of SA's bayes implementation

2012-11-09 Thread Patrick Ben Koetter
* dar...@chaosreigns.com dar...@chaosreigns.com: ... One of my questions is, does it make sense to continue to maintain bayesian stuff within SA at all? Or should we drop it, and encourage people to run a pure bayesian classifier before SA (like spamprobe), then have rules that read the

Re: Re-use bayes in masscheck?

2012-11-09 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 11/9/2012 2:50 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 11/09, Axb wrote: On 11/09/2012 05:58 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: I think these should be added to the rules: reuse BAYES_00 reuse BAYES_05 reuse BAYES_20 reuse BAYES_40 reuse BAYES_50 reuse BAYES_60 reuse BAYES_80 reuse BAYES_95

Re: Re-use bayes in masscheck?

2012-11-09 Thread Axb
On 11/09/2012 09:11 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: On 11/9/2012 2:50 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 11/09, Axb wrote: On 11/09/2012 05:58 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: I think these should be added to the rules: reuse BAYES_00 reuse BAYES_05 reuse BAYES_20 reuse BAYES_40 reuse

Re: Re-use bayes in masscheck?

2012-11-09 Thread darxus
On 11/09, Axb wrote: I realize some of the corpora won't have the bayes data, including most of mine. But I don't see how that's a reason not to provide the data that has already been calculated to ruleqa. coz chances are it's skewed data are huge? imo disabling bayes at masscheck would

Re: Re-use bayes in masscheck?

2012-11-09 Thread Axb
On 11/09/2012 09:21 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 11/09, Axb wrote: I realize some of the corpora won't have the bayes data, including most of mine. But I don't see how that's a reason not to provide the data that has already been calculated to ruleqa. coz chances are it's skewed data

Re: Re-use bayes in masscheck?

2012-11-09 Thread darxus
On 11/09, Axb wrote: releases, as part of final QA but bayes scores shouldn't be mutable. They aren't, and wouldn't be as a result of adding the reuse flag, because they're not in a gen:mutable/gen:mutable block. And I certainly wouldn't suggest changing that without at least seeing some data

Re: Future of SA's bayes implementation

2012-11-09 Thread RW
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 12:48:11 -0500 dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: I haven't done as much testing on this as I'd like, but I've gotten away from it, and wanted to get my thoughts in here before I forget them. I have a strong suspicion that SA's bayes implementation sucks. The two major