On Dienstag 19 Mai 2009 martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Jeff Mincy j...@delphioutpost.com [2009.05.19.1445
+0200]:
Use prefix matching instead!
formail -b -t -I X-Spam- msg
This is undoubtedly more of a sledgehammer approach, but I don't see
how it would/could be unsafe, really.
On 5/25/2009 9:47 AM, Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Dienstag 19 Mai 2009 martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Jeff Mincy j...@delphioutpost.com [2009.05.19.1445
+0200]:
Use prefix matching instead!
formail -b -t -I X-Spam- msg
This is undoubtedly more of a sledgehammer approach, but I don't
On Montag 25 Mai 2009 Yet Another Ninja wrote:
fetchmail from spam box , set fetchmail to deliver via smtp,
procmail pipe thru ripmime, save spam msg part, drop original, use
spam part to learn...
Ah, ripmime is the hint... Thx.
mfg zmi
--
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc-
also sprach Jeff Mincy j...@delphioutpost.com [2009.05.19.1445 +0200]:
formail -b -t -I X-Spam-Status: -I X-Spam-Flag: -I X-Spam-Checker-Version: -I
X-Spam-Rbl: -I X-Spam-Pyzor: -I X-Spam-DCC: -I X-Spam-Level: -I X-Spam-Bayes:
-I X-Spam-Relay: -I X-Spam-Report: -I X-Spam-AWL: -I X-Spam-Karma:
On Sonntag 17 Mai 2009 Rick Macdougall wrote:
Why not use
http://www.sonologic.nl/pub/Projects/ImapSaLearn/imap-sa-learn.pl.txt
I've improved it a bit: http://zmi.at/x/imap-sa-learn.pl
* debug 1 or 2 selectable
* no debug is good for interactive use, debug 1 for scripts, debug 2 for
real
On Sonntag 17 Mai 2009 Michael Monnerie wrote:
Why is it so extremely
slow and CPU consuming just to remove any existing markups?
There really seems to be no other way than calling spamassassin -d to
remove existing markups. I guess I will create an account where a script
takes all messages
On Dienstag 19 Mai 2009 Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Sonntag 17 Mai 2009 Rick Macdougall wrote:
Why not use
http://www.sonologic.nl/pub/Projects/ImapSaLearn/imap-sa-learn.pl.t
xt
I've improved it a bit: http://zmi.at/x/imap-sa-learn.pl
* debug 1 or 2 selectable
* no debug is good for
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 03:03 +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote:
Yes, I want to use spamc. But what parameters does it need to remove
existing spam markup, just like spamassassin -d does?
I don't think it does that, but it should be easy enough to add the
option and submit the result as a patch.
From: Michael Monnerie michael.monne...@is.it-management.at
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:34:53 +0200
On Sonntag 17 Mai 2009 Michael Monnerie wrote:
Why is it so extremely
slow and CPU consuming just to remove any existing markups?
There really seems to be no other way than
I don't think it does that, but it should be easy enough to add the
option and submit the result as a patch. spamc seemed pretty straight
forward last time I looked at its source.
Yeah, maybe some good hacker could do that. I'm not a programmer, unfortunately.
mfg zmi
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 15:05 +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote:
Nope. It needs to modify the body as well. We have a lengthy this is
SPAM text in the beginning of recognized Spam, with the original mail
attached. this way, it cannot happen that users accidentally click
on stupid Viagra links. So
On 19-May-2009, at 06:45, Jeff Mincy wrote:
You can use formail to remove headers. It is way faster than
spamassassin -d.
The only trick is listing all of the headers that can be added by
SpamAssassin.
formail -b -t -I X-Spam-Status: -I X-Spam-Flag: -I X-Spam-Checker-
Version: -I
On 19-May-2009, at 09:56, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Thats a much more complex problem than your original requirement to
strip out headers. You'll not get good solutions if you hide part of
the
problem.
His original problem was the very slow speed of spamassassin -d
OP from post #1
I like to
Michael Monnerie schrieb:
Nope. It needs to modify the body as well. [...]
And sometimes messages are encrypted twice, when they arrive over
certain paths. But that's an extra mess.
If the processing is that difficult you might consider to save a copy of
every incoming mail (before filters)
On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 19:11 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
On 17-May-2009, at 01:42, Michael Monnerie wrote:
fetchmail -asnp IMAP --folder autolearn --user $username -m formail
-s
|spamassassin -d /tmp/x $mailserver
Switch to using spamc/spamd and this way of using SA is OK.
Start the spamd
On Sonntag 17 Mai 2009 Rick Macdougall wrote:
Why not use
http://www.sonologic.nl/pub/Projects/ImapSaLearn/imap-sa-learn.pl.txt
Oh, looks interesting. But there's comment missing in the header, it
says:
# Feed mail from an imap mail folder to sa-learn. Options:
and then nothing. Are there no
On Sonntag 17 Mai 2009 Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
Do you access the IMAP on the same host/via unecrypted LAN
connection? [Translated: Can you use Net::IMAP::Simple module to
access the folder? Do you use Dovecot IMAP on the same host?
No. The spambox is different from the IMAP store, working
On Montag 18 Mai 2009 Martin Gregorie wrote:
Switch to using spamc/spamd and this way of using SA is OK.
Start the spamd daemon as part of your boot sequence. Replace
spamassassin -d with spamc in your fetchmail command. This way
there's no spamassassin per-message startup overhead. The
On Sonntag 17 Mai 2009 Chris wrote:
Here's a script I've been using for years now on my imap folders.
Works great. I've left some of the information in so you can see how
it's formated. Reports to Razor, Pyzor, DCC and, if setup, to
Spamcop.
http://pastebin.com/m39ad4cf9
Thank you Chris,
On Sonntag 17 Mai 2009 Jari Fredriksson wrote:
Why is there no mode -L spam -C report to spamc? Could do both at
once.
I think -C report does
a) remove markup
b) sent reports to ALL
c) learn as spam
All with the same command.
Hm. And where would the output without markup go? That's
On Sonntag 17 Mai 2009 Michael Monnerie wrote:
To clarify my posting, here some additions:
Question 1:
Do I need to call spamc twice, once with -L spam and once with -C
report? Do I understand correctly that -L trains my bayes, while -C
reports to spamcop etc.?
The man page of spamc
Finally measured again, it takes 1h7m to fetch from imap plus remove all
markups:
# time fetchmail -kasnp IMAP --folder $spamfolder--user $spamuser -m
formail -s |spamassassin -d /tmp/x $mailhost
real67m10.352s
user51m41.350s
sys 3m27.170s
mfg zmi
--
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc
Michael Monnerie wrote:
Finally measured again, it takes 1h7m to fetch from imap plus remove all
markups:
# time fetchmail -kasnp IMAP --folder $spamfolder--user $spamuser -m
formail -s |spamassassin -d /tmp/x $mailhost
real67m10.352s
user51m41.350s
sys 3m27.170s
mfg zmi
Why
- Original Message -
From: Michael Monnerie michael.monne...@is.it-management.at
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: learning from IMAP spam collection
Why is there no mode -L spam -C report to spamc? Could do both at once.
I think -C
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Michael Monnerie wrote:
Finally measured again, it takes 1h7m to fetch from imap plus remove all
markups:
I think the largest part of your problem is the fetch part.
The way this is usually set up is the training mailbox files reside on the
same server that is doing the
On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 09:42 +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote:
Dear experts,
I have a question regarding spam/ham learning, regarding performance. I
store spam in a mail folder accessible via IMAP. Then I want to feed
this into bayes. For this, I do:
fetchmail -asnp IMAP --folder autolearn
Michael Monnerie michael.monne...@is.it-management.at wrote:
Dear experts,
I have a question regarding spam/ham learning, regarding performance. I
store spam in a mail folder accessible via IMAP. Then I want to feed
this into bayes.
[...]
Could you answer a few extra question needed to
On 17-May-2009, at 01:42, Michael Monnerie wrote:
fetchmail -asnp IMAP --folder autolearn --user $username -m formail
-s
|spamassassin -d /tmp/x $mailserver
Fethmail first so you an get ALL the messages at once. THEN run
Spamassassin. This will be a lot shorter I'll be than what you are
28 matches
Mail list logo
