On 26. jan. 2015 17.25.06 John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
I don't quite understand what you're saying, can you unpack that a bit?
i have forgot now what the quesstion is and i belive you know what happends
if using skip rbl check is 1
On 01/26/2015 04:56 PM, John Hardin wrote:
OK, but: why does Bayes saying it looks as hammy as it looks spammy
score so much when network tests are disabled?
Highly un-scientific explanation:
Probably because history/experience/gut feeling/etc decided, in absence
of network tests, that it
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Jan 23, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Wolf Drechsel drech...@verkehrsplanung.com
wrote:
2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Spamwahrscheinlichkeit nach Bayes-Test:
40-60%
On 25.01.15 11:13, LuKreme wrote:
This is incorrect.
Bayes_50 should be
On 26. jan. 2015 16.57.09 John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
OK, but: why does Bayes saying it looks as hammy as it looks spammy
score so much when network tests are disabled?
dnswl is disabled, or missing training of ham, skip rbl check does not only
disable blacklists
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 26. jan. 2015 16.57.09 John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
OK, but: why does Bayes saying it looks as hammy as it looks spammy
score so much when network tests are disabled?
dnswl is disabled, or missing training of ham, skip rbl check does
Am 26.01.2015 um 17:17 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On 26. jan. 2015 16.57.09 John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
OK, but: why does Bayes saying it looks as hammy as it looks spammy
score so much when network tests are disabled?
dnswl is disabled, or missing training of ham, skip rbl check
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 26. jan. 2015 17.25.06 John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
I don't quite understand what you're saying, can you unpack that a bit?
i have forgot now what the quesstion is and i belive you know what happends
if using skip rbl check is 1
I
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-26 09:41:
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
that would indicate nwtwork rules are not used there (too bad)...
why is it bad of missing train of ham ? :-)
Am 26.01.2015 um 10:55 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-26 09:41:
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
that would indicate nwtwork rules are not used there (too bad)...
why is it bad of missing train of ham ? :-)
WTF - it's bad if network tests are disabled -
On Jan 23, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Wolf Drechsel drech...@verkehrsplanung.com wrote:
2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Spamwahrscheinlichkeit nach Bayes-Test: 40-60%
On 25.01.15 11:13, LuKreme wrote:
This is incorrect.
Bayes_50 should be scored at about 0.5, or lower.
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.0
Am Montag, 26. Januar 2015, 11:23:59 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 26.01.2015 um 10:55 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-26 09:41:
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
that would indicate nwtwork rules are not used there (too bad)...
why is it bad of missing
On 01/26/2015 12:05 PM, Wolf Drechsel wrote:
Am Montag, 26. Januar 2015, 11:23:59 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 26.01.2015 um 10:55 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-26 09:41:
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
that would indicate nwtwork rules are not used there (too
On 01/26/2015 12:11 PM, Axb wrote:
On 01/26/2015 12:05 PM, Wolf Drechsel wrote:
Am Montag, 26. Januar 2015, 11:23:59 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 26.01.2015 um 10:55 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-26 09:41:
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
that would indicate
Am 25.01.2015 um 19:13 schrieb LuKreme:
On Jan 23, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Wolf Drechsel drech...@verkehrsplanung.com wrote:
2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Spamwahrscheinlichkeit nach Bayes-Test: 40-60%
This is incorrect.
Bayes_50 should be scored at about 0.5, or lower
depends on the
On Jan 23, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Wolf Drechsel drech...@verkehrsplanung.com wrote:
2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Spamwahrscheinlichkeit nach Bayes-Test:
40-60%
This is incorrect.
Bayes_50 should be scored at about 0.5, or lower.
--
Your stepmom is cute
Shut up, Ted
Remember when she was a
Am 25.01.2015 um 19:30 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 25.01.2015 um 19:13 schrieb LuKreme:
On Jan 23, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Wolf Drechsel
drech...@verkehrsplanung.com wrote:
2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Spamwahrscheinlichkeit nach
Bayes-Test: 40-60%
This is incorrect.
Bayes_50 should be scored
Hello,
thanks a lot for all of these answers! -
I've to confess that I found a very stupid misconfiguration within kdepim's
rules
set - changing that resolved most of the issue.
Sorry I caused that effort - but finally I found a solution for my prob...
Am Freitag, 23. Januar 2015, 10:39:32
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Wolf Drechsel wrote:
Hi everybody,
I googled and read a lot - but couldnt find any trick...
After months of training still round 90% of all messages are treated as
SPAM,
allthough I'm marking all of them as HAM.
2.0
Am 23.01.2015 um 18:59 schrieb John Hardin:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Wolf Drechsel wrote:
I googled and read a lot - but couldnt find any trick...
After months of training still round 90% of all messages are treated
as SPAM,
allthough I'm marking all of them as HAM.
2.0 BAYES_50
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Wolf Drechsel wrote:
Hi everybody,
I googled and read a lot - but couldnt find any trick...
After months of training still round 90% of all messages are treated as SPAM,
allthough I'm marking all of them as HAM.
2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Spamwahrscheinlichkeit
Hi everybody,
I googled and read a lot - but couldnt find any trick...
After months of training still round 90% of all messages are treated as SPAM,
allthough I'm marking all of them as HAM.
My environment:
Ubuntu 14.04
kmail 4.14.2 in the kontact (kdepim) suite
SpamAssassin version 3.4.0
To start, there are several very real things wrong with your example
message. In my opinion, that message was correctly classified.
Do you have any better-representative samples that you can paste in
full? (http://pastebin.com/)
Have you tried using -D bayes to see what tokens are being
Joe Quinn wrote:
To start, there are several very real things wrong with your example
message. In my opinion, that message was correctly classified.
Maybe, maybe not - without the actual message there's no more
information. I've seen all too much legitimate mail hit some very
strange
23 matches
Mail list logo
