,
(G_ARRAY|G_EVAL|G_KEEPERR));
Is your answer still the same?
Thanks a lot!
Joe
Justin Mason wrote:
hi Joe --
just ignore the return value of finish() -- it's a void method.
(note how it doesn't mention a return value in its POD doc ;)
--j.
Joe Flowers writes:
Hello Everyone,
I'm
that is ;)
--j.
Joe Flowers writes:
Thanks Justin. I am embedding Perl inside a C program, so I hope this is
still true. It used to return a non-NULL or at least the following call
used to always return a count of 1 and not 0 like it is now after the
SA upgrade.
count = perl_call_method
Hello Everyone,
I'm getting a weird error message that I have never gotten before over
several versions of SA. I just upgraded from SpamAssassin version 3.1.7
running on Perl version 5.8.8 to SpamAssassin version 3.2.0 running on
Perl version 5.8.8. Now, my calls to
Yep, a problem I continually get is that people want to make email into
something that it is not.
It's not a credit card or an ATM card or Driver's license or a Visa or etc.
Joe
jay plesset wrote:
It never fails to amaze me now many mail server admins ask for ways to
break the RFC's in the
I assume a rule already exists for this but just in the remote chance
it's not...
If the text with a URL in a hyperlink does not match the href, then the
message should get more spam points.
For example,
HREF=http://StringA;http://StringB/A
if(StringA != StringB) { Add more spam points. }
---
D1161764311
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
A3548708497
X1
Lwallwk wallwk 12
---
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:35:07PM -0400, Joe Flowers wrote:
If I pre-pend a message's Envelope to it's Body, can Spamassassin do
anything useful with it?
It depends
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:57:52PM -0400, Joe Flowers wrote:
I'd prefer to use M::SA-check_message_text(), but if I do a
M::SA-check_message_text('This is a programmer's nightmare.'), then
M::SA-check_message_text() will choke because of the (') in the middle
Even if spamd is process forking and not spawning worker threads, is it
possible with the latest production versions of Perl and SA to make it
muli-threaded all the way through?
When I say all the way through, I'm wanting to know if, even in a
threaded implementation, would
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
You can use any quoting mechanism you like:
...(This is a programmer's ...)
...([EMAIL PROTECTED] is a programmer's ...@)
etc.
Sorry for the Perl question.
Is the q in ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is a programmer's ...@) a typo?
No, it isn't. It means QUOTE and
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
You may also want to
look at M::SA-check_message_text().
Theo,
I'd prefer to use M::SA-check_message_text(), but if I do a
M::SA-check_message_text('This is a programmer's nightmare.'), then
M::SA-check_message_text() will choke because of the (') in the middle
Hey guys,
If I pre-pend a message's Envelope to it's Body, can Spamassassin do
anything useful with it?
Joe
Ken A wrote:
It should be mentioned that envelope To: is not there for a reason.
:-( Including it in the header will remove the privacy enabled by Bcc,
so if you have privacy considerations to worry about, you might think
twice.
I pre-pend the envelope to a copy of the message and then send
David B Funk wrote:
When the milter is passing the message to spamd, it is easy to add
synthesized headers (such as 'Return-Path:' 'X-Envelope-To:') to pass
envelope addresses to SA (that's what I did with the milter that I use).
Still, pre-pending is 10x easier than inserting.
Do you guys ever get parse() to bail out on a message?
I seem to get that every once in a while.
my $mail = $spamtest-parse($message);
Thanks!
Joe
Hello everyone! :)
Can I get away with this without any memory or resource leaks? Is this OK?
Thanks!
Joe
my $spamtest = Mail::SpamAssassin-new();
my $status =
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 04:36:24PM -0400, Joe Flowers wrote:
Is there a way to set the required_score on the fly between each email
message test?
You haven't stated what you're trying to do, but you could update the
user preference between spamassassin/spamc runs
Is there a way to set the required_score on the fly between each email
message test?
I tried changing the required_score in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
but it is unsurprisingly not rescanned/reloaded between each message
that is tested. It would really be cool (not to mention extremely
: Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:05:25 -0400
Subject: Re: 3.1.2?
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 05:32:45PM -0400, Joe Flowers wrote:
Any educated guesses on when 3.1.2 will be released?
From a selfish point of view, I'm trying to kill several
Justin,
Do you have suggestions on how I should come up with the two boundary
lines and what do I do with the unsure messages?
I'm all ears.
Joe
Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
btw, I was just rereading this -- an interesting approach you might
want to
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Joe Flowers wrote on Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:09:29 -0400:
That's bad, really bad
detection ...
No. It's good, really good detection.
You should improve that instead of trying to find a
barrier which gives you the best FP:FN ratio.
I'm not trying to find the best
Matt Kettler wrote:
The only problem I see with this approach is that it treats false positives and
false negatives as being equally bad.
We do get many more false negatives than false positives, even though we
don't get false positives very often - they are rare.
We certainly don't get
Thanks Jason!
That's good, new info for me. That'll help me *at the very least*
visualize what I am trying to do a little better. I've been very curious
to know what the rough shapes of those graphs look like.
Joe
Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
will
report back how many ham and how many spam messages that I have fed to
bayes. It's far from perfect, but it may offer some interesting info
regarding the 100:1 (fn:fp) ratio.
Joe
Matt Kettler wrote:
Joe Flowers wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
The only problem I see with this approach
jdow wrote:
The greater the separation choke the
better the results for a decision point between them.
But anything you can do that widens the
typical score distribution between ham and spam is a good thing.
Amen
BTW, if anyone knows a command line program that can easy run thu a
bunch of mbox files and tell how many messages are in them, I will report
back how many ham and how many spam messages that I have fed to bayes.
Well, I thought this might give some good stats on the FP:FN ratio, but
I
Loren Wilton wrote:
This is quite interesting, and seems reasonably obvious that with the right
sort of mail (at least, maybe with any mail) this shoudl work better, since
it self tunes to your conditions. It does of course assume a reasonable
fp/fn rate to start, but SA is generally pretty
SA 3.02
Is there a way to make sa-learn ignore custom (non-SA) headers?
Thanks!
Joe
Payam:
You need to read the license and follow it to the letter, and I encourage you
to donate to them anyway.
Joe
shabanip wrote:
but i want to use it in a commercial project
really i won't need to pay??!!!
Payam Shabanian
shabanip -at- avapajoohesh.com
AFAIK you don't need one :-D Tho, I
Before I'm testing each message with SpamAssassin, I'm prepending the
envelope to the email message.
Can anyone comment on the positive or ill-effects this might have on the
SA scoringI'm not running the envelope-pre-pended-messages thru
bayes (sa-learn) though. I usually run messages thru
Joe Emenaker wrote:
Joe Flowers wrote:
Very preliminary results are no less than AWESOME.
So... how are you implementing the drifting spam threshold?
- Joe
wish, but I would bet my ragged little implementation is built
on a potentially much much faster and much more scalable and much more
generic (say many more options) foundation.
i.e., I fear not.
Joe
Michael Parker wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:55:24AM -0500, Joe Flowers wrote:
I'll try
others in the end.
Again, I apologize Michael, but I do hope you understand that from my
perspective, what I've done is not a waste of time.
Sincerely,
Joe
Michael Parker wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 01:16:39AM -0500, Joe Flowers wrote:
I know of that implemenation. And, I'm sure
I'm having a hard time finding the docs on this (I saw them once) where
get_hits and get_required_hits are deprecated.
Is there a mapping/listing of these deprecated calls and what the new
calls are?
Thanks.
J
I liked the O'Reilly book a lot too, eventhough the Perl code on page 67
is apparently not right.
Still like that book a lot. It has been a great helpHighly
recommended here.
Joe
Help please!
If the average spam score of all of my ham messages is 1.0 and the
average spam score of all of my spam messages is 3.0, then what is the
best way to move the average_of_ these_two_averages (2.0) back up to 5.0?
The result being that I need my current average score for ham messages
SA isn't about the average it's about the accuracy.
If this were the case, then why aren't the spam scores
(*required_hits*) for each message either 1 or 0 and nothing else?
36 matches
Mail list logo
