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
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
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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6864
John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
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
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
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6864
Darxus dar...@chaosreigns.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo