On 26. jan. 2015 17.25.06 John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
I don't quite understand what you're saying, can you unpack that a bit?
i have forgot now what the quesstion is and i belive you know what happends
if using skip rbl check is 1
On 01/26/2015 04:56 PM, John Hardin wrote:
OK, but: why does Bayes saying it looks as hammy as it looks spammy
score so much when network tests are disabled?
Highly un-scientific explanation:
Probably because history/experience/gut feeling/etc decided, in absence
of network tests, that it
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Jan 23, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Wolf Drechsel drech...@verkehrsplanung.com
wrote:
2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Spamwahrscheinlichkeit nach Bayes-Test:
40-60%
On 25.01.15 11:13, LuKreme wrote:
This is incorrect.
Bayes_50 should be
On 26. jan. 2015 16.57.09 John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
OK, but: why does Bayes saying it looks as hammy as it looks spammy
score so much when network tests are disabled?
dnswl is disabled, or missing training of ham, skip rbl check does not only
disable blacklists
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 26. jan. 2015 16.57.09 John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
OK, but: why does Bayes saying it looks as hammy as it looks spammy
score so much when network tests are disabled?
dnswl is disabled, or missing training of ham, skip rbl check does
Am 26.01.2015 um 17:17 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On 26. jan. 2015 16.57.09 John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
OK, but: why does Bayes saying it looks as hammy as it looks spammy
score so much when network tests are disabled?
dnswl is disabled, or missing training of ham, skip rbl check
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 26. jan. 2015 17.25.06 John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
I don't quite understand what you're saying, can you unpack that a bit?
i have forgot now what the quesstion is and i belive you know what happends
if using skip rbl check is 1
I
IMHO that is a bug
with bayes_auto_learn 0 there is no reason to lock the bayes database
and the spamd-service should be happy with ReadOnlyDirectories=/var/lib
training and sa-update is done on a shell independent of network aware
services
Jan 27 02:52:58 testserver spamd[2794]: bayes:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-26 09:41:
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
that would indicate nwtwork rules are not used there (too bad)...
why is it bad of missing train of ham ? :-)
Am 26.01.2015 um 10:55 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-26 09:41:
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
that would indicate nwtwork rules are not used there (too bad)...
why is it bad of missing train of ham ? :-)
WTF - it's bad if network tests are disabled -
On Jan 23, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Wolf Drechsel drech...@verkehrsplanung.com wrote:
2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Spamwahrscheinlichkeit nach Bayes-Test: 40-60%
On 25.01.15 11:13, LuKreme wrote:
This is incorrect.
Bayes_50 should be scored at about 0.5, or lower.
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.0
Am Montag, 26. Januar 2015, 11:23:59 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 26.01.2015 um 10:55 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-26 09:41:
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
that would indicate nwtwork rules are not used there (too bad)...
why is it bad of missing
On 01/26/2015 12:05 PM, Wolf Drechsel wrote:
Am Montag, 26. Januar 2015, 11:23:59 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 26.01.2015 um 10:55 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-26 09:41:
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
that would indicate nwtwork rules are not used there (too
On 01/26/2015 12:11 PM, Axb wrote:
On 01/26/2015 12:05 PM, Wolf Drechsel wrote:
Am Montag, 26. Januar 2015, 11:23:59 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 26.01.2015 um 10:55 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-26 09:41:
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
that would indicate
14 matches
Mail list logo
