> > Do I have to set it to 0?
>
> No, but that may explain why the two servers have different
> Bayes scores for similar messages. If they receive different
> message streams they will be learning a different view of the
> email world.
OK. Thanks all clear for me!!
> > But Then how I have to
Hi,
Rocco Scappatura wrote:
what it can be the reason of the different score assigned?
why the second system doesn't assign an AWL score?
They give different Bayes scores so the Bayes databases have
been trained with different messages. Do you have autolearn
switched on?
# Bayesian classi
> > what it can be the reason of the different score assigned?
> > why the second system doesn't assign an AWL score?
>
> They give different Bayes scores so the Bayes databases have
> been trained with different messages. Do you have autolearn
> switched on?
# Bayesian classifier auto-learn
Rocco Scappatura wrote:
So you are saying that I have to train SA?
That would be how you would improve your Bayes accuracy, yes.
I have trained SA on my server but I still get a score lower than 5.0..
Content analysis details: (4.3 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name descript
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 5:49 am, Rocco Scappatura wrote:
> > If you can post the full email (headers and body), I'll run it over my
> > system which has lots and lots of third party add on rules from
> > www.rulesemporium.com and others and see if I can make SA
> > score it high
> > enough for A
> > So you are saying that I have to train SA?
>
> That would be how you would improve your Bayes accuracy, yes.
I have trained SA on my server but I still get a score lower than 5.0..
Content analysis details: (4.3 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
Rocco Scappatura wrote:
Assuming this is your score line:
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.5 required=5.0 >
tests=AWL,BAYES_50,HTML_30_40, >
HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TEXT_AFTER_BODY,MIME_HTML_ONLY,SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3
> autolearn=no version=3.1.8
Then the biggest difference is that my Bayes
> Assuming this is your score line:
>
> > X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.5 required=5.0 >
> tests=AWL,BAYES_50,HTML_30_40, >
> HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TEXT_AFTER_BODY,MIME_HTML_ONLY,SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3
> > autolearn=no version=3.1.8
>
> Then the biggest difference is that my Bayesian scoring
Hi,
Rocco Scappatura wrote:
I get the following:
Content analysis details: (5.7 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
1.7 SA
> > Content analysis details: (5.7 points, 5.0 required)
> >
> > pts rule name description
> > --
> > --
> > 0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
> > 1.7 SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3 BODY
> I get the following:
>
> Content analysis details: (5.7 points, 5.0 required)
>
> pts rule name description
> --
> --
> 0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
> 1.7 SARE_PROLOSTOCK
Hi,
Rocco Scappatura wrote:
http://www.rocsca.it/INBOX
Could someone give me an hint on how to block email like the one above?
Thanks,
rocsca
I get the following:
Content analysis details: (5.7 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
> http://www.rocsca.it/INBOX
Could someone give me an hint on how to block email like the one above?
Thanks,
rocsca
> I get the following score:
>
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 14 07:13:02 2007
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on a
> If you can post the full email (headers and body), I'll run it over my
> system which has lots and lots of third party add on rules from
> www.rulesemporium.com and others and see if I can make SA
> score it high
> enough for Amavisd-new to block the email..
Thanks.
http://www.rocsca.it/INBOX
14 matches
Mail list logo
