Re: spamassassin and caching nameservers

On 22 Aug 2016, at 21:15, Alex wrote: Is it a full-fledged nameserver, suitable enough for MX, A, TXT, queries, etc for this purpose? Nope. rbldnsd is only an authoritative server and does not do any resolution via other servers or caching of records for which it is not authoritative. If

Re: spamassassin and caching nameservers

Not sure if this helps but I use bind dlz with a mysql back-end as DNSBL of last resort. We get the IP addresses from honeypot emails, and it works pretty good. I have a daemon running in the background that uses a few intermediary tables with metrics like last seen, rate, total count, etc.. to

Re: spamassassin and caching nameservers

On 8/22/2016 9:15 PM, Alex wrote: Has anyone configured it as a local caching nameserver, and if so, could you share your config? Correct me if I'm wrong... but... I'm almost positive that rbldnsd acts ONLY as an authoritative name server, and not ever as a caching name server. I don't think

Re: spamassassin and caching nameservers

For what it's worth I use PowerDNS for a recursive nameserver and happy with it. Very easy to set up. On 08/22/16 18:15, Alex wrote: Hi all, I've just set up spamassassin on a cable connection that appears to have sporadic DNS timeouts using bind. It shouldn't be so slow that queries timeout,

spamassassin and caching nameservers

Hi all, I've just set up spamassassin on a cable connection that appears to have sporadic DNS timeouts using bind. It shouldn't be so slow that queries timeout, but apparently they are. I'm hoping rbldnsd would provide that additional responsiveness needed. I've set up rbldnsd before, to be used

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 09:03:38 -0700 > Marc Perkel wrote: The real magic is the feedback learning. So as it identifies ham it learns new words and phrases that then match email from other people. So it learns

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Aug 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Marc Perkel > wrote: On 08/22/16 09:06, Dianne Skoll wrote: On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 09:03:38 -0700 Marc Perkel > wrote: The ones that are

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 09:03:38 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: The ones that are the same are of no interest. Only where it matches one side and not the other. On 08/22/16 09:06, Dianne Skoll wrote: But... but... that's exactly like Bayes if you throw out tokens whose

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 10:44:42 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: > This is nothing like bayes. It's exactly like Bayes. You're stumbling across a hacked version of Bayes. You seem to lack the mathematical background to see what you're doing, thinking it's somehow

Re: Matching infinite sets

On 08/22/16 09:06, Dianne Skoll wrote: On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 09:03:38 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: The ones that are the same are of no interest. Only where it matches one side and not the other. But... but... that's exactly like Bayes if you throw out tokens whose

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 09:06:08 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: > Hi Dianne, what your missing are word combinations. Usually it's not > a single word but a combination of words that trigger a result. [snip] So that's Bayes with multi-word tokens, throwing out tokens whose

Re: Matching infinite sets

On 08/22/16 08:58, RW wrote: On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:34:00 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: On 08/22/16 07:28, Dianne Skoll wrote: The other two possibilities (no tokens in either or some tokens in both) are undecidable. Exactly! In the past you've said that when there are token in both you

Re: Matching infinite sets

What you are trying to do is to identify a source of messages by its entropysupposed the entropy of a ham source is distinguishable from a spam one... 2016-08-22 13:48 GMT-03:00 Antony Stone < antony.st...@spamassassin.open.source.it>: > On Monday 22 August 2016 at 18:00:35, Marc Perkel

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Monday 22 August 2016 at 18:00:35, Marc Perkel wrote: > On 08/22/16 07:37, Antony Stone wrote: > > > > So what makes "cheapest Viagra online" a token, such that "cheapest" and > > "online" are not tokens? > > They would all be tokens. Just pointing out one that would match spam > and not

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 09:03:38 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: > The ones that are the same are of no interest. Only where it matches > one side and not the other. But... but... that's exactly like Bayes if you throw out tokens whose observed probability is not 0 or 1.

Re: Matching infinite sets

On 08/22/16 07:45, Dianne Skoll wrote: On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:34:00 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: So. What percentage of emails using your algorithm are actually decidable? Almost 100% if you look at a wide variety of tokens from multiple attributes. I can't

Re: Matching infinite sets

On 08/22/16 07:40, Antony Stone wrote: On Monday 22 August 2016 at 16:34:00, Marc Perkel wrote: On 08/22/16 07:28, Dianne Skoll wrote: What percentage of emails using your algorithm are actually decidable? Almost 100% if you look at a wide variety of tokens from multiple attributes.

Re: Matching infinite sets

> On Aug 22, 2016, at 8:09 AM, John Hardin wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Antony Stone wrote: > >> On Monday 22 August 2016 at 16:45:09, Dianne Skoll wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:34:00 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: > So. What percentage of emails using your

Re: Matching infinite sets

On 08/22/16 07:37, Antony Stone wrote: On Monday 22 August 2016 at 16:34:09, Marc Perkel wrote: OK - Trying to make the really simple. Just talking about concept now. Let's say I get an email where the subject is "I have aednocarsonoma of the lung". Right off you know it's ham because

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:34:00 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: > On 08/22/16 07:28, Dianne Skoll wrote: > > The other two possibilities (no tokens in either or some tokens in > > both) are undecidable. > > Exactly! In the past you've said that when there are token in both you compare the counts. On

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Antony Stone wrote: On Monday 22 August 2016 at 16:45:09, Dianne Skoll wrote: On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:34:00 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: So. What percentage of emails using your algorithm are actually decidable? Almost 100% if you look at a wide variety of tokens from

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Monday 22 August 2016 at 16:45:09, Dianne Skoll wrote: > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:34:00 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: > > > So. What percentage of emails using your algorithm are actually > > > decidable? > > > > Almost 100% if you look at a wide variety of tokens from multiple > > attributes. > >

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:34:00 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: > > So. What percentage of emails using your algorithm are actually > > decidable? > Almost 100% if you look at a wide variety of tokens from multiple > attributes. I can't believe that, or I'm missing

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Monday 22 August 2016 at 16:34:00, Marc Perkel wrote: > On 08/22/16 07:28, Dianne Skoll wrote: > > > What percentage of emails using your algorithm are actually > > decidable? > > Almost 100% if you look at a wide variety of tokens from multiple > attributes. Subject, body, content flags,

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Monday 22 August 2016 at 16:34:09, Marc Perkel wrote: > OK - Trying to make the really simple. Just talking about concept now. > > Let's say I get an email where the subject is "I have aednocarsonoma of > the lung". > > Right off you know it's ham because spammers never use the word >

Re: Matching infinite sets

OK - Trying to make the really simple. Just talking about concept now. Let's say I get an email where the subject is "I have aednocarsonoma of the lung". Right off you know it's ham because spammers never use the word "aednocarsonoma" and normal people do. Spammer also never use: "of the

Re: Matching infinite sets

On 08/22/16 07:28, Dianne Skoll wrote: On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:16:41 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: Anthony, Yes - I don't store Set B. I store Set A. B is defined by what's NOT in A. So I test A and if it's not matched it's set B. Set B is just a negative match on A.

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:16:41 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: > Anthony, Yes - I don't store Set B. I store Set A. B is defined by > what's NOT in A. So I test A and if it's not matched it's set B. Set > B is just a negative match on A. Let me ask you a question. As far

Re: Matching infinite sets

On 08/22/16 06:55, Antony Stone wrote: On Monday 22 August 2016 at 15:46:41, Dianne Skoll wrote: On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 06:04:49 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: Set A - a finite set - has some members, Set B - an infinite set - is everything that is NOT in Set A Set B

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Monday 22 August 2016 at 15:46:41, Dianne Skoll wrote: > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 06:04:49 -0700 > > Marc Perkel wrote: > > Set A - a finite set - has some members, > > Set B - an infinite set - is everything that is NOT in Set A > > Set B is a very special case of

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 06:04:49 -0700 Marc Perkel wrote: > Set A - a finite set - has some members, > Set B - and infinite set - is everything that is NOT in Set A Set B is a very special case of an infinite set. We're talking about infinite sets in general. Also,

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 08:54:48 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > The empty set contains itself. No, it doesn't. By definition. Regards, Dianne.

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Monday 22 August 2016 at 15:04:49, Marc Perkel wrote: > I'm confused by the confusion here. > > Set A - a finite set - has some members, > Set B - and infinite set - is everything that is NOT in Set A > > So you match a test item to Set A and if it matches it's a member of A. > If it

Re: Matching infinite sets

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 09:55:10 +1200 Sidney Markowitz wrote: > I'm one of those people he mentions who understands > how Bayesian spam filtering works who has yet to wrap my head around > what he is presenting - For now I'm staying agnostic about it until I > do understand it better). What it

Re: Matching infinite sets

On 08/22/2016 09:02 AM, Joe Quinn wrote: > On 8/22/2016 8:54 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> On 08/21/2016 03:22 PM, Damian wrote: >>> There is no such set B, as it would contain itself. >> The empty set contains itself. > That's an easy mistake to make. The empty set is {}, the set that > contains

Re: Matching infinite sets

I'm confused by the confusion here. Set A - a finite set - has some members, Set B - and infinite set - is everything that is NOT in Set A So you match a test item to Set A and if it matches it's a member of A. If it doesn't match Set A it's a member of B. How is this not really simple?

Re: Matching infinite sets

On 8/22/2016 8:54 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: On 08/21/2016 03:22 PM, Damian wrote: There is no such set B, as it would contain itself. The empty set contains itself. That's an easy mistake to make. The empty set is {}, the set that contains only the empty set is {{}}. Sets are discrete

Re: Matching infinite sets

On 08/21/2016 03:22 PM, Damian wrote: >> > There is no such set B, as it would contain itself. The empty set contains itself.

Re: Matching infinite sets

On 8/21/2016 5:55 PM, Sidney Markowitz wrote: Dianne Skoll wrote on 22/08/16 8:56 AM: And... why can't a set contain itself? It can't in standard modern set theory (ZFC), through the foundation axioms, also known as the axiom of regularity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_regularity