http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4176
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-03 16:10 ---
Actually, when I don't mis-type the uri, it works fine in a plain text message.
Sidney, can you attach the html message you're using to the bug?
--- You
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4176
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-03 16:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=2832)
-- (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2832action=view)
Test spam containing redirected url that is not parsed
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4176
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-03 17:01 ---
I think I see the problem.
In HTML.pm the call to uri_list_canonify passes in
$self-{conf}-{redirector_patterns} but unlike in PerMsgStatus.pm, where the
same
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4176
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-03 17:09 ---
Well, I'm wrong about the fix - I don't know much about how O-O perl works and
what the SUPER::new in HTML::new does compared to the way things are in
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4176
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-03 17:42 ---
I read up a little on perl O-O... Is it the case that the @ISA in HTML.pm means
that it inherits from HTML::Parser and not from Mail::SpamAssassin, and it has
no
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4176
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-03 17:46 ---
Subject: Re: [review] RFE: please add pattern for nate.com redirector
Yeah, I just took a look at it now. It appears that I just copied the
line over from
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4302
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-03 18:19 ---
I had just downloaded the latest svn and built it before running make test.
This also happened on the verson from 2 days ago, and I decided to get a
fresh copy
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4074
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-03 18:21 ---
Response from Joseph:
The problem disappeared when I installed the beta release of SpamAssassin. I
am no longer having this issue, but when I revert back to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Author: quinlan
Date: Tue May 3 19:31:07 2005
New Revision: 168050
...
don't allow _ since that's not allowed in hostnames
I'm wondering if this is a good idea?
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4302
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-03 19:55 ---
I deleted the installed version of SpamAssassin and again untared the svn
version into a new directory. I got the same result except that the files
in t/log now
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4303
Summary: spamd forgets scores of rules created in user_prefs
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 3.0.2
Platform: Sun
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4303
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-03 20:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=2833)
-- (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2833action=view)
user_prefs snippet which loses
--- You are
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4303
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-03 20:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=2834)
-- (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2834action=view)
results of running spamc the first time
Note that
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4303
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4303
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-03 20:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=2835)
-- (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2835action=view)
results of running spamc the second time
Note that the
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4302
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-03 20:22 ---
Subject: Re: Test t/spamc_optL fails.
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-03 19:55 ---
I deleted the installed version of
Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-1
I think sometimes we are a bit cavalier throwing around -1. There is a
floating point scale here. ;-)
My goal is to figure out and document these corner cases before we find
ourselves stressed out and fighting in the middle of a release.
Frankly,
don't allow _ since that's not allowed in hostnames
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes:
I'm wondering if this is a good idea?
Well, it's not allowed in the RFC and SURBL doesn't contain a single _
hostname, but if you want to add it back, I'm okay with that.
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes:
don't allow _ since that's not allowed in hostnames
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes:
I'm wondering if this is a good idea?
Well, it's not allowed in the RFC and SURBL doesn't contain a single _
hostname,
I just did a little experiment. I placed an entry for the ip address of one
of my web servers in /etc/hosts (or rather the Windows equivalent of it on
my PC) with host name www_host.exam_ple.com. I emailed myself a message
containing the text http://www_host.exam_ple.com
When I looked at the
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4156
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||triage
--- You are
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4289
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||triage
--- Additional
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4196
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||triage
--- Additional
Well enough, I treat _ the same as - now.
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4258
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4289
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-04 00:30 ---
Subject: Re: Incorrect application/ms-tnef parsing with \r\n
Ok.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday,
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4302
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-04 07:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=2836)
-- (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2836action=view)
Output of perl Makefile.PL
Since I captured it, let's
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4302
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-04 07:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=2837)
-- (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2837action=view)
Output of make.
Output of make. The actual command line
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4153
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #2793 is|0 |1
obsolete|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4302
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-04 07:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=2839)
-- (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2839action=view)
t/log/spamc_optL-spamd.err
The files in t/log from last
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4302
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-04 07:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=2840)
-- (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=2840action=view)
Output of make test
Here is the output of make test from
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4302
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-04 07:43 ---
spamc/spamc.c:
spamc/libspamc.c:
spamc/libspamc.c, line 1274: warning: statement not reached
spamc/utils.c:
Hmmmthat looks like it could be a bug,
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 11:28:04PM -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
- do a pre-release this week with an eye towards getting some early
testing in place since there's a lot more going on than just those
two things
Is this still the plan?
Michael
pgpqi68HvwtfB.pgp
Description: PGP
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4302
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-04 08:20 ---
Subject: Re: Test t/spamc_optL fails.
Can you try this patch?
Index: spamc/libspamc.c
===
---
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3342
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-04 09:58 ---
In general using the test mode is a bit inefficient, but yes, that's less
efficient than it should be, and it would be worth improving.
If you know you've got
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4302
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-04 10:38 ---
Yes, the -xO4 specifies additional optimization. I have been using it on all
the previous versions of SpamAssassin without any problems, but it seems to
cause
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4299
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-04 10:58 ---
The spf query module uses Net::DNS itself, which means that it does not make use
of our re-use of a socket, backgrounding of DNS queries, or the selection of one
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:28:02AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$default_cf_lines
- use_auto_whitelist 1
+
+ifplugin Mail::Spamassassin:AWL
+use_auto_whitelist 1
auto_whitelist_path ./log/awl
auto_whitelist_file_mode 0755
+endif
It
How are the rule weights for spamassassin generated? There is a method
called boosting with several associated algorithms which is
specifically aimed at combining the outputs of a collection of weak
classifiers into a more accurate classifier. It seems somewhat
relevant, has it been tried?
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:02:04PM -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Hmmm... maybe it would be better to skip the test if the plugin is not
loaded.
Hwe need some sort of init.pre parser that can parse the file
and then we can query a hash or something else to determine if a
particular
Michael Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hwe need some sort of init.pre parser that can parse the file
and then we can query a hash or something else to determine if a
particular test should be run.
Let me know when you've got it done :)
Well, it may not be pretty, but the AWL
Frederik Eaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How are the rule weights for spamassassin generated?
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Perceptron
There is a method called boosting with several associated algorithms
which is specifically aimed at combining the outputs of a collection
of weak
I see. This is better than hand-generation, which some web pages say
spamassassin uses.
So, the most well-known boosting algorithm is AdaBoost, this works by
assigning weights to a set of training examples, training a classifier
on the weighted examples, and then updating the weights using a
Frederik Eaton wrote:
How are the rule weights for spamassassin generated? There is a method
called boosting
The rule weights are generated using a single-layer perceptron, as described
in the wiki link that Daniel mentioned.
I'm writing a paper this semester [I hope :-)] looking at the
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1363
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-04 14:53 ---
Allen,
Are you still available to do some testing with 3.1?
If not, anyone want to give this a go? It might work out to be a good idea.
Or would having these
Frederik Eaton wrote:
How are the rule weights for spamassassin generated? There is a method
called boosting with several associated algorithms which is
specifically aimed at combining the outputs of a collection of weak
classifiers into a more accurate classifier. It seems somewhat
relevant,
Fred wrote:
There was similar work being done in the past to identify rules to be
grouped into new meta rules, this (w|c)ould achieve similar results.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1363
I think I'm missing something here. Are you saying that automatically
grouping rules into
In this same vein of exploring concepts like the
application of boosting algorithms or using meta rulesets to enhance
the SA classification process, I've been looking for an interesting
doctoral dissertation topic in the spam domain for a some time now and
was wondering if folks in the SA
48 matches
Mail list logo
