Hi all - about a year ago, I displayed the results of my corpus as:
331,840 nspam
2,218,218 nham
for a 6.68::1 ratio of ham-to-spam.
While everything seemed to be getting scored properly, someone suggested
that it is
safer to have it closer to a 1-to-1 ratio, and recommended I change the ham
Ben wrote:
Whenever I run sa-learn it claims to learn from every message
regardless of
whether its being run immediately after being run on the same folder.
This was happening to me as well, but I was not running sa-learn from
the
correct account. SpamAssassin was installed by user exim, so the
Hi all,
Back in the spring, someone mentioned that it is good to have your
ham/spam ratio close
to even. I have a site-wide set-up and while it seemed to be working
perfectly, I did notice
that when I did an sa-learn -dump magic, my ham-to-spam ratio was
almost 7::1 (2,200,000
ham to
kdg wrote:
If you're running a sitewide AWL on any kind of scale beyond a few tens
of domains, and a couple hundred accounts, you should probably look at
putting it in SQL - it's a *lot* easier to maintain there.
It is one domain, with 20,000 accounts. I will see about using SQL.
Thanks.
Hi all,
I just noticed that we have had auto_whitelisting turned off since
2005 (!). I just turned it
back on (first deleting the auto_whitelist file in
/home/exim/.spamassassin (we run a site-wide
installation) and ensuring that file was re-created after restarting
spamd). It seems to
127.0.0.1 is not remote host :/
did you send it for testing ?
Nope. This was a real, live message from the outside world.
make sure that exim do send remote ip to sa, else it will work
badly, also that exim does not accept and bounce, i have seen it, if
its spam then reject
I'm pretty sure our
I may be able to answer my own question, as something like this was
asked a few
weeks ago and John Hardin said that AWL is a misleading name, as it is
just giving an
average score, not necessarily whitelisting something. Thanks John.
Hi all,
I am running SA 3.2.5 and exim 4.69 on a RedHat Enterprise Linux box
(release 4, Nahant Update 6).
I noticed today that our /var/log/maillog was spewing out a lot of:
cannot open bayes databases /var/spool/spamassassin/bayes_* R/W:
lock failed: Interrupted
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Savoy, Jim wrote:
[23409] dbg: locker: safe_lock: trying to get lock on
/var/spool/spamassassin/bayes with 300 timeout
[23409] dbg: locker: safe_lock: timed out after 300 seconds
(it sat for 3 minutes at each of the two 300 timeout warnings).
John Hardin wrote:
Disable
0.000 0 206774 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 01515235 0 non-token data: nham
John Hardin wrote:
I got the impression that the goal was to have a ratio that roughly
reflected the spam:ham ratio of your raw mail stream. If Jim gets 17
times
more
John Hardin wrote:
Note I said raw; by that I meant before any filtering.
Ah.
Also, I was speaking about manual training, though I could see where
autolearn might lead to the above ratio.
I would say that about 99% of our training comes from autolearn. I only
feed (with sa-learn) whatever
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009, Ricardo Kleemann wrote:
I have SA working very well for me, but there are still a few cases
of spam
that are very persistent, I still get a considerable amount of spam
that SA
doesn't catch.
However, what is annoying is that no matter how much I feed through
sa-learn,
Apparently yesterday I push the wrong button in my control
panel which
caused our email server to block all incoming emails.
Cadet Stimpy - I specifically told you *not* to press the
[History Eraser Button]! Now look what
ItsMikeE wrote:
I have been running this rule for a day now, and am trapping
the spams with rules 1 and 2.
I too just started running these rules, but noticed there were a lot
more NICE_GIRL_02's than NICE_GIRL_01's being hit (about twice as many
of the former).
I think you need to change:
14 matches
Mail list logo
