Re: bayes scroing too low
Am 31.08.2014 um 12:20 schrieb Axb: Are you using RAZOR PYZOR? On 08/31/2014 11:58 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127650 perl-Razor-Agent - Only used for the not enabled by default Razor plugin so i guess no ok, so start using them - install packages and enable plugins. also try DCC if possible... Can you post this sample to pastebin? i don't have accounts on any one-click-hoster hence attached as ZIP pff.. since when does one need an account at pastebin.com? On 31.08.14 12:35, Reindl Harald wrote: honestly never had a need for pastebin working 11 years yes, because you post attachments to the list, which is not very polite... looks like in case of the SA-list i start to use it in the future good... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. On the other hand, you have different fingers.
Re: bayes scroing too low
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:20:41 +0200, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote: Axb get the source from http://razor.sourceforge.net/ I don't recommend Axb installing via some rpm. The last version mentioned on that site is 2.84, from May 2007. strangely, the version on current Debian packages is 2.85. Anyone know what's going on here? -- Please *no* private copies of mailing list or newsgroup messages. Local Variables: mode:claws-external End:
Re: bayes scroing too low
On 09/01/2014 07:39 AM, Ian Zimmerman wrote: On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:20:41 +0200, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote: Axb get the source from http://razor.sourceforge.net/ I don't recommend Axb installing via some rpm. The last version mentioned on that site is 2.84, from May 2007. strangely, the version on current Debian packages is 2.85. Anyone know what's going on here? According to http://sourceforge.net/projects/razor/files/razor-agents/ there is indeed a 2.85 version. changes file file states: Relicense under Artistic License 2.0. See LICENSE for details. What does diff say?
bayes scroing too low
i guess it needs to adjust them depending on block score was one of the typical enhance your penis mails score BAYES_95 0 0 3.23.0 score BAYES_99 0 0 3.83.5 X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.4, tag-level=4.5, block-level=8.5 X-Spam-Report: * 0.5 CUST_DNSBL_8 RBL: ix.dnsbl.manitu.net * [192.157.213.199 listed in ix.dnsbl.manitu.net] * 0.3 CUST_DNSBL_15 RBL: spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net * [192.157.213.199 listed in spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net] * -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4 RBL: Very Good reputation (+4) * [192.157.213.199 listed in wl.mailspike.net] * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.] * -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.0 T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID BODY: Test for Invalidly Named or Formatted * Colors in HTML * 0.2 BAYES_999 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99.9 to 100% * [score: 1.] * 0.0 HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST BODY: HTML font color similar or identical to * background * -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: bayes scroing too low
On 08/31/2014 11:41 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: i guess it needs to adjust them depending on block score was one of the typical enhance your penis mails score BAYES_95 0 0 3.23.0 score BAYES_99 0 0 3.83.5 you missed: + 0.2 BAYES_999 X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.4, tag-level=4.5, block-level=8.5 X-Spam-Report: * 0.5 CUST_DNSBL_8 RBL: ix.dnsbl.manitu.net * [192.157.213.199 listed in ix.dnsbl.manitu.net] * 0.3 CUST_DNSBL_15 RBL: spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net * [192.157.213.199 listed in spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net] * -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4 RBL: Very Good reputation (+4) * [192.157.213.199 listed in wl.mailspike.net] * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.] * -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.0 T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID BODY: Test for Invalidly Named or Formatted * Colors in HTML * 0.2 BAYES_999 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99.9 to 100% * [score: 1.] * 0.0 HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST BODY: HTML font color similar or identical to * background * -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders Are you using RAZOR PYZOR? Can you post this sample to pastebin?
Re: bayes scroing too low
On 08/31/2014 11:58 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Are you using RAZOR PYZOR? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127650 perl-Razor-Agent - Only used for the not enabled by default Razor plugin so i guess no get the source from http://razor.sourceforge.net/ I don't recommend installing via some rpm. same with Pyzor http://www.pyzor.org latest release has quite a few important bugfixes. Can you post this sample to pastebin? i don't have accounts on any one-click-hoster hence attached as ZIP pff.. since when does one need an account at pastebin.com? the main question is if i should raise up the scores on a machine with a very well trained bayes and if they are only so low to prevent false positives in bad trained environments Bayes scores are *not* set to be a sole indicator of spam/ham. They're supposed to be yet another indicator.
Re: bayes scroing too low
Am 31.08.2014 um 12:20 schrieb Axb: On 08/31/2014 11:58 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Are you using RAZOR PYZOR? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127650 perl-Razor-Agent - Only used for the not enabled by default Razor plugin so i guess no get the source from http://razor.sourceforge.net/ I don't recommend installing via some rpm. same with Pyzor http://www.pyzor.org latest release has quite a few important bugfixes. i keep both in mind if it comes to some rpm it's in doubt from my own rpmbuilder :-) Can you post this sample to pastebin? i don't have accounts on any one-click-hoster hence attached as ZIP pff.. since when does one need an account at pastebin.com? honestly never had a need for pastebin working 11 years as sysadmin / developer and on most mailing-lists you see angry respones for linking to external ressources looks like in case of the SA-list i start to use it in the future the main question is if i should raise up the scores on a machine with a very well trained bayes and if they are only so low to prevent false positives in bad trained environments Bayes scores are *not* set to be a sole indicator of spam/ham. They're supposed to be yet another indicator that was my guess and is still so by give BAYES_99 7.0 and reject via milter above 8.5 here are some internal DNSWL in the mix with different trust levels and the bayes is only trained by myself for all users since in the past people tended to feed their spam bayes with newsletters they subscribed and for whatever reason instead unsubscribe mark it as spam frankly, even parts of my own family called me by phone saying can't you block that mails? and after have you subscribed there? and yes a angry then unsubscribe there instead bring me to damage the detection for others so users in the future will send me spam which made it through the filter as attachment, after review i move it to the global train-folder and add the junk coming to one of my 8 accounts combined with my non-sensible communication as ham what users in general fail is add enough of their ham to the mix and mostly fail to reach the 200 at all signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: bayes scroing too low
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:20:41 +0200, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote: Axb Bayes scores are *not* set to be a sole indicator of spam/ham. Axb They're supposed to be yet another indicator. FWIW, I use both Razor and Pyzor, and there are times when they seem to be just asleep. Or maybe a particular kind of spam defeats their hash protection methods. Then for some hours I get repeated cases like Harald's - positive BAYES_999 but nothing much else. It is quite frustrating. I started using the KAM rules and they seem to push most such messages over - but then _they_ include rules with 5+ scores ... -- Please *no* private copies of mailing list or newsgroup messages. Local Variables: mode:claws-external End:
Re: bayes scroing too low
Am 31.08.2014 um 23:06 schrieb Ian Zimmerman: On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:20:41 +0200, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote: Axb Bayes scores are *not* set to be a sole indicator of spam/ham. Axb They're supposed to be yet another indicator. FWIW, I use both Razor and Pyzor, and there are times when they seem to be just asleep. Or maybe a particular kind of spam defeats their hash protection methods. Then for some hours I get repeated cases like Harald's - positive BAYES_999 but nothing much else. It is quite frustrating. nope - there is nothing frustrating set the bayes scores higher if you trust them, i am starring for some hours on my maillogs and without Razor and Pyzor the results are *impressing* in comination with postscreen and PTR-checks and SA as last defense there comes 1 out of 1000 delivery attempts to a user, as far as i see no false positives and a handful of spam makes it through - trying to eliminate that would introduce false positives which is odd after 8 years using a commercial spamfirewall which also useses SA within a lot of other *real crap* and after switch a domain with some thousand valid RCPT i hold my breath and ask myself why i did not do that switch long ago signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
