Re: Zero-width rules?

On Jun 27, 2019, at 12:04 PM, John Hardin wrote: > >> There's still not enough of that to trigger a scored rule, though. It may >> need some review of the masscheck results, and tuning. > > OK, retuned. FWIW, the x200b entity occurs only in my spam; I see it nowhere in my ham inbox or

Re: Zero-width rules?

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:13:02 -0400 Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 6/26/2019 6:09 PM, Amir Caspi wrote: > > On Jun 26, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Kevin A. McGrail > > wrote: > > That HTML portion should have been picked up by any ZWJ/ZWS/etc. > > rules, no? > > > I don't

Re: Zero-width rules?

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, John Hardin wrote: On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, John Hardin wrote: On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Amir Caspi wrote: Any idea why this spample didn't hit the ZWJ obfuscation rules? They were looking for multiple obfuscations in a *single* word. I've loosened that a bit. There's still

Re: Zero-width rules?

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, John Hardin wrote: On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Amir Caspi wrote: Any idea why this spample didn't hit the ZWJ obfuscation rules? They were looking for multiple obfuscations in a *single* word. I've loosened that a bit. There's still not enough of that to trigger a scored

Re: Zero-width rules?

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Amir Caspi wrote: John et al, I recall from a prior thread last year that there were supposed to be some rules to check for zero-width joiner characters... but I'm seeing spams recently that have these, but don't hit any such rules. Here's one spample, where the ZWJ

Re: Zero-width rules?

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Amir Caspi wrote: Any idea why this spample didn't hit the ZWJ obfuscation rules? They were looking for multiple obfuscations in a *single* word. I've loosened that a bit. -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ jhar...@impsec.org

Re: Machine learning with or vs. Bayes?

> Of course, Gmail and the other big providers have their own ML solutions that > seem to be pretty good, though they have an enormous user base and > near-infinite resources... I would argue, in contrary, that Gmail performs rather poorly, I have at least one FP a day and that is a big no no.

Machine learning with or vs. Bayes?

Hi all, I don't suppose anyone has a neural-net-based SA Machine Learning plugin or external program, to complement or replace Bayes? There are a number of fairly compact Python ML packages that would greatly ease this task nowadays, like TensorFlow. It looks like rspamd has a neural net

Re: Machine learning with or vs. Bayes?

On Fri, 28 Jun 2019, 07:42 Amir Caspi, wrote: > Hi all, > > I don't suppose anyone has a neural-net-based SA Machine Learning plugin > or external program, to complement or replace Bayes? There are a number of > fairly compact Python ML packages that would greatly ease this task > nowadays,

Re: spamass-milter reject?

On 27 Jun 2019, at 9:33, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > for mail received from the net I use amavisd-new with amavisd-milter. > > Content filter accepts message, I don't want to drop it, send bounce or send > it to anyone. I use content filter for mail sent from internal network or > through

Re: spamass-milter reject?

On 27 Jun 2019, at 9:33, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: for mail received from the net I use amavisd-new with amavisd-milter. Content filter accepts message, I don't want to drop it, send bounce or send it to anyone. I use content filter for mail sent from internal network or through

Re: How to create my personal RBL

On 6/26/19 3:43 AM, hg user wrote: > Thank you everybody for your really interesting answers. In this moment > I'm just collecting informations. > > I have one main problem: one of the engines used by our commercial > antispam solution returns too many FPs. I'm gradually introducing >

Re: spamass-milter reject?

On 26 Jun 2019, at 9:02, @lbutlr wrote: Well, I want spam MARKED at 5.0, but I want it REJECTED at 10.0. It is a subtle difference, but the majority of spam being delivered to users is in the 10-100 range. On 26.06.19 22:19, Matt Anton wrote: I achieve that with amavisd-new being configured