Having this in the bayes db:
335424 nspam
144915 nham
129892 ntokens
and a fairly good hit rate by Bayes in detecting both spam and ham, how
would you improve Bayes scores?
In example, would you increase every bayes scores by a fixed percentage, or
instead would you
Hi Folks,
My nightly sa-upgrade caught this funny error and I cannot figure out...
Mar 25 04:15:45.030 [76697] info: body_0: 1547 base strings extracted in 37
seconds
rules: failed to run FUZZY_OCR test, skipping:
(Timeout::_run: Insecure dependency in open while running with -T
switch
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Warren Togami wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
[r...@mail ~]# rpm -qa spamassassin
spamassassin-3.3.1-3.el5.rf
What is rf?
I have no idea.
This isn't the first complaint about the rf RPM.
http://wtogami.livejournal.com/34108.html
Please don't use that repository.
Alex wrote:
Will the new RBLs in v3.3.1 ever be available/compatible with v3.2.5?
What would be involved with making the PSBL DNSBL work with v3.2.5?
You can certainly add additional RBLs to 3.2.5. For example:
# PSBL easy-on, easy-off blacklist: http://psbl.surriel.com
header
Hi,
- Alex mysqlstud...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Anyway, it'll soon be deprecated in favor of 20_aux_tlds.cf, which
is
part of the stock rule-set since 3.3.1. Bug 6361. As mentioned in
the
release announcement.
Is the 20_aux_tlds.cf stable and available for use to replace it now?
Carlos Mennens wrote on Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:20:28 -0400:
What is rf?
I have no idea.
rpmforge, of course.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On 25.3.2010 10:14, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Having this in the bayes db:
335424 nspam
144915 nham
129892 ntokens
and a fairly good hit rate by Bayes in detecting both spam and ham, how
would you improve Bayes scores?
In example, would you increase every bayes
Hallo!
Follow-up on SA 3.3.1 upgrade yesterday
My system changes log reported the addition of several files
named .razor/... which brought to my attentino that 'RAZOR2' tests
are now enabled by default in SA 3.3.1
Is there anything that I should be concerned about? It seems to be
I've seen a few FPs on this rule from genuine ham sent by one of my
colleagues using Thunderbird 3.0.4 - not all her mail, but specifically
replies to certain messages with UTF-8 encoding.
Anyone else seeing this?
John.
--
-- Over 4000 webcams from ski resorts around the world -
In case anyone else uses a script to scan the SA injected message headers
to build log records (to detail matched tests, etc), and that script cares
about the *order* of the headers, then please take note that in 3.3.1 the
position of the 'report_safe 0' command in your .cf files relative to
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:31:19 +0100, Kai Schaetzl mailli...@conactive.com
wrote:
Carlos Mennens wrote on Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:20:28 -0400:
What is rf?
I have no idea.
rpmforge, of course.
Kai
I have different problems with latest spamassassin from rpmforge. it does
not start
On 3/25/10 12:08 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
Hallo!
Follow-up on SA 3.3.1 upgrade yesterday
My system changes log reported the addition of several files
named .razor/... which brought to my attentino that 'RAZOR2' tests
are now enabled by default in SA 3.3.1
A long time ago, in a
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Michael Scheidell wrote:
(you using the freebsd SA port?)
CentOS 4 (RHEL 4) rpm from rpmforge
- C
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, fakessh wrote:
I have different problems with latest spamassassin from rpmforge. it does
not start
Did you run sa-update as per my warning?
- C
yes, somehow the sender was in spamcop rbl, and the nightly sa-update
keeps up to date with 72_active.cf rule..
but, maybe a score of 5.3 is pretty high for ONE rule?
(
KHOP_SC_TOP200 is 3.9. but since its in the spamcop database, you add 1.34.
total of 5.3. )
score KHOP_SC_TOP200
I have increased BAYES_00 and BAYES_99. It seems that those are pretty
good and cause no FP's, but BAYES_05 may sometimes be spam. I have
BAYES_99 as a killer, it has 5 points, sending the mail to a 'probable
spam' alone.
Ah, that is even narrower and probably less prone to misclassification.
On 25.3.2010 20:30, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
I have increased BAYES_00 and BAYES_99. It seems that those are pretty
good and cause no FP's, but BAYES_05 may sometimes be spam. I have
BAYES_99 as a killer, it has 5 points, sending the mail to a 'probable
spam' alone.
Ah, that is even
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:10:36 +0100, fakessh fake...@fakessh.eu wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:58:22 -0400 (EDT), Charles Gregory
cgreg...@hwcn.org wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, fakessh wrote:
I have different problems with latest spamassassin from rpmforge. it
does
not start
Did you run
I have run into a snag.
The release notes for 3.3.0 indicate that Mail::SPF::Query is no longer
used.
I have been using the pypolicyd-spf package from openspf.org, which
required python-spf to be installed to take advantage of their module.
With that I had previously used to following
On 25/03/2010 5:04 PM, Clayton Keller wrote:
I have run into a snag.
The release notes for 3.3.0 indicate that Mail::SPF::Query is no longer
used.
I have been using the pypolicyd-spf package from openspf.org, which
required python-spf to be installed to take advantage of their module.
On 25/03/2010 12:35 PM, John Wilcock wrote:
I've seen a few FPs on this rule from genuine ham sent by one of my
colleagues using Thunderbird 3.0.4 - not all her mail, but specifically
replies to certain messages with UTF-8 encoding.
Anyone else seeing this?
Can you share samples in a bug
On 25/03/2010 2:26 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
yes, somehow the sender was in spamcop rbl, and the nightly sa-update
keeps up to date with 72_active.cf rule..
but, maybe a score of 5.3 is pretty high for ONE rule?
(
KHOP_SC_TOP200 is 3.9. but since its in the spamcop database, you add
On 3/25/2010 4:25 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 25/03/2010 5:04 PM, Clayton Keller wrote:
I have run into a snag.
The release notes for 3.3.0 indicate that Mail::SPF::Query is no longer
used.
I have been using the pypolicyd-spf package from openspf.org, which
required python-spf to be
On 25/03/2010 5:37 PM, Clayton Keller wrote:
On 3/25/2010 4:25 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 25/03/2010 5:04 PM, Clayton Keller wrote:
I have run into a snag.
The release notes for 3.3.0 indicate that Mail::SPF::Query is no longer
used.
I have been using the pypolicyd-spf package from
On 3/25/2010 4:58 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 25/03/2010 5:37 PM, Clayton Keller wrote:
On 3/25/2010 4:25 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 25/03/2010 5:04 PM, Clayton Keller wrote:
I have run into a snag.
The release notes for 3.3.0 indicate that Mail::SPF::Query is no longer
used.
I
On 25/03/2010 6:03 PM, Clayton Keller wrote:
On 3/25/2010 4:58 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Hrm. It looks like they're still there. I actually don't see that
support for Mail::SPF::Query has been dropped.
Daryl
Ok, that's what I was seeing as well. Thank you for confirming that for me.
Was there any decisions regarding the deprecation of the use of
Mail::SPF::Query that has been tossed around? I will admit I have not
looked through any bug report requests regarding this at all.
I haven't either. Hopefully Mark or someone else will chime in.
I believe the following
On 25/03/2010 7:33 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Was there any decisions regarding the deprecation of the use of
Mail::SPF::Query that has been tossed around? I will admit I have not
looked through any bug report requests regarding this at all.
I haven't either. Hopefully Mark or someone else
On 3/25/2010 6:47 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 25/03/2010 7:33 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Was there any decisions regarding the deprecation of the use of
Mail::SPF::Query that has been tossed around? I will admit I have not
looked through any bug report requests regarding this at all.
I
29 matches
Mail list logo
