Loren Wilton wrote:
You'ld think that there should be some way to do a reverse DNS to determine
from an ip the domains that exist on that ip. I suspect though that the
whole internet fabric is designed the other way around, and that this
information is probably something that no single
David Brodbeck wrote:
Loren Wilton wrote:
You'ld think that there should be some way to do a reverse DNS to
determine from an ip the domains that exist on that ip. I suspect
though that the whole internet fabric is designed the other way
around, and that this information is probably
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Brodbeck wrote:
Loren Wilton wrote:
You'ld think that there should be some way to do a reverse DNS to
determine from an ip the domains that exist on that ip. I suspect
though that the whole internet fabric is designed the other way
From: Chris Santerre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If that statement is true, perhaps the surbl lists could
automatically
include the dotquads for hosts that are known to be
pure spam sources and
not mixed systems.
[previous stuff snipped]
Loren
Loren is correct. And Jeff and I have had this conversation many times.
Jeff
would rather not risk the FPs by doing it. I can see his point. But I
agree
with Loren that we have IPs that are pure spam.
One tiny quibble. For each machine blocked
On Saturday, June 4, 2005, 6:20:11 AM, jdow jdow wrote:
One tiny quibble. For each machine blocked there is perhaps one whole
internal site that is blocked as well. But it means that site is
throwing spam out to the universe and the company doing it or the
individual doing it should stop the
How exactly do we determine what other sites are hosted on a
given server, i.e., sites that don't appear in spams? IOW
how do you know there's one internal site?
You'ld think that there should be some way to do a reverse DNS to determine
from an ip the domains that exist on that ip. I
On Thursday, May 26, 2005, 12:49:05 PM, Evan Langlois wrote:
On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 10:42 -0400, Chris Santerre wrote:
For site wide, I'm pretty much against it. I know people will argue that
point. I'm obviously biased towards SARE rules updated with RDJ. And the use
of URIBL.com lists. But
SURBLs on the other hand have mostly domain names with a few IPs.
Whatever appears in URI host portions is what goes into SURBLs.
Usually URIs have domain names so that's what most of the SURBL
records are.
Jeff, the OP (or someone) had an interesting idea, I thought.
It was basically the
On Friday 03 June 2005 08:10, Loren Wilton typed:
It was basically the spammer makes a zillion new domains, and they all
take time to get into SURBL, so some spam gets through. But they all point
to the same dotted quad, and I can match on that lookup.
If that statement is true, perhaps the
On Friday, June 3, 2005, 12:33:26 AM, Duncan Hill wrote:
On Friday 03 June 2005 08:10, Loren Wilton typed:
It was basically the spammer makes a zillion new domains, and they all
take time to get into SURBL, so some spam gets through. But they all point
to the same dotted quad, and I can match
If that statement is true, perhaps the surbl lists could automatically
include the dotquads for hosts that are known to be pure spam
sources and
not mixed systems. Then the client could get the ip for a suspect hostname
and see if it matched a known spam dotquad.
I'd swear this
-Original Message-
From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 6:47 AM
To: Duncan Hill; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is Bayes Really Necessary?
If that statement is true, perhaps the surbl lists could
automatically
include the dotquads
...
On Friday, June 3, 2005, 12:33:26 AM, Duncan Hill wrote:
On Friday 03 June 2005 08:10, Loren Wilton typed:
It was basically the spammer makes a zillion new domains, and they all
take time to get into SURBL, so some spam gets through. But they all point
to the same dotted quad, and I can
List Mail User wrote:
And adding a URI rule for the completewhois list (basically the same
function as the no longer existing ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org list) will hit
yet more name servers and spammer IPs with slightly fewer FPs (no issue with
escalations). The list is:
On Friday, June 3, 2005, 3:47:05 AM, Loren Wilton wrote:
If that statement is true, perhaps the surbl lists could automatically
include the dotquads for hosts that are known to be pure spam
sources and
not mixed systems. Then the client could get the ip for a suspect hostname
and
From: Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Sneaky one you are - you got around my Reply-To markup for this list. For
that you get an extra copy. {^_-})
jdow wrote:
One way to keep Bayes from running is to never train it.
{^_^}
You'd also disable autolearning. By default SA will eventually
From: List Mail User [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Though nobody seems to have said it exactly this way: It seems
to be becoming very obvious that the people who say the have problems
with Bayes are those who support a diverse group of users (e.g. ISPs
and email providers) and those who find it works
From: Jim Maul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gotta stop smokin the green ;)
Yeah, it's better if you shovel the random greens you find into the
compost pit. Not many people will look for them in a compost pit when
they get reported as missing persons.
{O,o}
OK. I misunderstood. The URIBLS are working fine. Interestingly, although
I use the SARE rules and URIBLS, some spam is still slipping through. This
spam is fairly obvious spam some I am a bit surprised. Should I be tweaking
the scoring?
MK == Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MK
-Original Message-
From: Jake Colman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 9:47 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is Bayes Really Necessary?
OK. I misunderstood. The URIBLS are working fine.
Interestingly, although
I use the SARE rules and URIBLS
Yes, BAYES is an integral part of SA!
It's like a constantly changing rule (without the need to tweak the rule
ever so slightly for nuances in the new mail.
There are mails that don't trip any standard rules, but are caught by
bayes alone.
Steven
-Original Message-
From: Jake Colman
On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 10:08 -0400, Jake Colman wrote:
Given the rather complete set of rules that ship with SA and which can
expanded with SARE, does bayes learning really help? Won't the rules catch
pretty much everything anyway?
I have used SA with Bayes and it took quite a bit of
* Kristopher Austin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We have found Bayes to be more trouble than it's worth. We were
frequently running into problems keeping the database stable and fresh.
We have a site-wide install so that just made it all the more
problematic.
We also have a site-wide install with
I think points can be made for both sides of the argument. The thing that makes bayes different, is that a well trained bayes database is specific to your environment. If you're a law firm, your learned ham is going to be heavy in legalese, medical related org, heavy in that terminology. Because
-Original Message-
From: Jake Colman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 10:09 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Is Bayes Really Necessary?
Given the rather complete set of rules that ship with SA and which can
expanded with SARE, does bayes learning
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Joe Zitnik wrote:
I think points can be made for both sides of the argument. The thing
that makes bayes different, is that a well trained bayes database is
specific to your environment. If you're a law firm, your learned ham is
going to be heavy in legalese, medical
I have autolearn off. I have been burned by it twice. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/26/2005 10:33 AM
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Joe Zitnik wrote: I think points can be made for both sides of the argument. The thing that makes bayes different, is that a well trained bayes database is specific to your
Joe Zitnik wrote:
Bayes definitely helps, but auto-learn can cause problems. Perhaps a
better question would be, Is autolearn really neccessary?
I think the problems mostly come from accidentally autolearning spam as
ham, which is easy with the default threshold. Autolearning messages as
* Jim Maul [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have been running sitewide bayes since the beginning without much
maintenance at all. It has autolearned every message itself and its
dead on balls accurate. I've trained maybe 20 message total manually so
i dont see how running bayes could actually cause
On 5/26/2005 10:08 AM, Jake Colman wrote:
Given the rather complete set of rules that ship with SA and which can
expanded with SARE, does bayes learning really help? Won't the rules catch
pretty much everything anyway?
The base SA install is insufficient, but if you tweak the scores and add
Though nobody seems to have said it exactly this way: It seems
to be becoming very obvious that the people who say the have problems
with Bayes are those who support a diverse group of users (e.g. ISPs
and email providers) and those who find it works well, even with autolearning
are those
Given the rather complete set of rules that ship with SA and which can
expanded with SARE, does bayes learning really help? Won't the rules
catch
pretty much everything anyway?
Um, maybe, maybe not.
Bayes *necessary*? No, especially if you run net tests.
Bayes *highly desirable*? Yup. An
On Thursday May 26 2005 1:13 pm, Loren Wilton wrote:
Given the rather complete set of rules that ship with SA and which can
expanded with SARE, does bayes learning really help? Won't the rules
catch
pretty much everything anyway?
Um, maybe, maybe not.
Bayes *necessary*? No,
CS == Chris Santerre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-Original Message-
From: Jake Colman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 10:09 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Is Bayes Really Necessary?
Given the rather complete set
-Original Message-
From: Jake Colman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 2:54 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is Bayes Really Necessary?
CS == Chris Santerre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-Original Message-
From: Jake Colman [mailto
On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 10:42 -0400, Chris Santerre wrote:
For site wide, I'm pretty much against it. I know people will argue that
point. I'm obviously biased towards SARE rules updated with RDJ. And the use
of URIBL.com lists. But these allow a general users, or a sitewide install
to set and
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Thomas Cameron wrote:
On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 10:08 -0400, Jake Colman wrote:
Given the rather complete set of rules that ship with SA and which can
expanded with SARE, does bayes learning really help? Won't the rules catch
pretty much everything anyway?
I have used
CS == Chris Santerre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I already use RDJ and the automatic updater. How do I use URIBL? I
looked at the usage page and I undersyand that I need to create a .cf
file but how does it access the lists?
CS If you are using SA 3.x, support is already
Jake Colman wrote:
CS == Chris Santerre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CS If you are using SA 3.x, support is already included. You simply have
CS to create the config file, restart spamd, and *poof* way less spam.
CS Net::Dns is required. I forget which version. I forget a lot of
40 matches
Mail list logo
