--On 23 March 2007 11:08:12 -0700 Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I think my problem might be is that I have done so much work
prescreening messages with Exim that what's left isn't good stock for
autolearn. I think what I need is a separate dedicated learner server
that is
Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 23 March 2007 11:08:12 -0700 Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I think my problem might be is that I have done so much work
prescreening messages with Exim that what's left isn't good stock for
autolearn. I think what I need is a separate dedicated learner
R Lists06 wrote:
Are you sure of this? Have you also trained these ham messages to
counter this effect? Not too long ago we were in the same situation.
I have autolearn enabled but I have adjusted the thresholds to avoid
This is quite possible. I have heard other stories of people using
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, David Gibbs wrote:
While I agree that image spam is a PITA ... I have to wonder how
ANYONE in the right mind could fall for that garbage.
I mean, be real ... if the message you get contains an image,
surrounded by garbage text, and the image quality is worse than a
Perhaps what I need to do is to get rid of autolearn and write my own
learning system that strips out the body of messages with images and
just learns the headers. My problem is that when users get image spam
they put it in the spam folders and they get learned. But the text in
the image spam
Yes image spam can be a real pain. I have just implemented a new mailserver and
image spam is certainly on the increase :-
mysql select count(*) from maillog;
+--+
| count(*) |
+--+
|15091 |
+--+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
mysql select count(*) from maillog where
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Marc Perkel wrote:
Perhaps what I need to do is to get rid of autolearn and write my
own learning system that strips out the body of messages with
images and just learns the headers. My problem is that when users
get image spam they put it in the spam folders and they get
/me continues to wait for the spammers to tire of greylisting
I work for a managed hosting provider, and I have seen spam messages get
back customers' greylisting setups. It may be isolated, but some
spammers are already starting to work around it.
Marc Perkel wrote:
Perhaps what I need to do is to get rid of autolearn and write my own
learning system that strips out the body of messages with images and
just learns the headers. My problem is that when users get image spam
they put it in the spam folders and they get learned. But the text
Well, my two cents on this:
When I upgraded my servers (about half a year ago) and started using a
mysql-based Bayes DB, image spams began to drive me crazy. Seemed like there
was no way to stop them. But with a good purge of bayes, a rebuild, and the
addition of sa-update rules, it all began to
users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is Bayes Dead? Have the spammers won?
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:45:22 -0300
Well, my two cents on this:
When I upgraded my servers (about half a year ago) and started using a
mysql-based Bayes DB, image spams began to drive me crazy. Seemed like
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:55:07 -0700, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of
bayes poisoning going on I've found that bayes is just lowering
the score
of
spam and causing more spam to get through. Where bayes used to
Jim Maul wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Perhaps what I need to do is to get rid of autolearn and write my own
learning system that strips out the body of messages with images and
just learns the headers. My problem is that when users get image spam
they put it in the spam folders and they get
Marc Perkel wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Perhaps what I need to do is to get rid of autolearn and write my own
learning system that strips out the body of messages with images and
just learns the headers. My problem is that when users get image spam
they put it in the spam
But with a good purge of bayes, a rebuild, and the
addition of sa-update rules,
How do you safely purge bayes anyway?
Matt
Are you sure of this? Have you also trained these ham messages to
counter this effect? Not too long ago we were in the same situation.
I have autolearn enabled but I have adjusted the thresholds to avoid
This is quite possible. I have heard other stories of people using
things
Jim Maul wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Perhaps what I need to do is to get rid of autolearn and write my
own learning system that strips out the body of messages with
images and just learns the headers. My problem is that when users
get image spam they put
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of bayes
poisoning going on I've found that bayes is just lowering the score of
spam and causing more spam to get through. Where bayes used to be the
centerpiece of spam filtering now I have turned it off to increase accuracy.
Hi,
My Bayes is just as accurate as it has always been.
Any false negatives usually all have BAYES_99 in them, they just don't
have enough other rule hits to raise the overall score above the threshold.
Marc Perkel wrote:
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of bayes
Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of bayes
poisoning going on I've found that bayes is just lowering the score of
spam and causing more spam to get through.
So is there
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Kris Deugau wrote:
John D. Hardin wrote:
I've never trusted automatic learning. Why let your Bayes database be
(even partially) under the control of a third party, particularly
when that third party is the attacker?
Because there's no other (practical and/or
Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of bayes
poisoning going on I've found that bayes is just lowering the score of
spam and causing more spam to get through.
So is there actually any
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Where bayes used to be the centerpiece of spam filtering ...
FWIW, I don't think Bayes has really ever been the centerpiece of
spam filtering. Definitely not within SA anyway. It's a good tool,
but it's just another tool in the belt.
On 22-mrt-2007, at 20:02, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Where bayes used to be the centerpiece of spam filtering ...
FWIW, I don't think Bayes has really ever been the centerpiece of
spam filtering. Definitely not within SA anyway.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:41:03PM -0500, maillist wrote:
I don't know about that. I'd say that 95% of all spam filtered in my
system has BAYES_99 as a trigger, and of that, probably 75% - 85% would
not have been caught if not for that trigger.
Don't confuse filtering methods with rules.
-Messaggio originale-
Da: --[ UxBoD ]-- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using a combination of numerous SA rules, bayes, FuzzyOCR and BotNet on
a new server Ive just built we are trashing the SPAM. Attached graph
is for today :-
What does received mean in the graph?
Giampaolo
I was wondering the same thing, idly. Then one day my Bayes stopped
working and I went from 30-40 spams getting through in a day to 500-600
getting through. Believe me, I think Bayes is doing a decent job of
adding to the scores of spammy messages...
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with
On 3/22/07, Kris Deugau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone using SA in an ISP environment will run into this problem;
I agree here, I am using SA in an ISP and I have disabled Bayes. There
is no way I can get regular good supply of ham from our customers. No
one want's to forward their good mails
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of bayes
poisoning going on I've found that bayes is just lowering the score of
spam and causing more spam to get through. Where bayes used to be the
centerpiece of spam
29 matches
Mail list logo
