Am 21.01.2016 13:19, schrieb Reindl Harald:
no entirely when "urrently, SA's bayes tokens are single words" from
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-dev/201211.mbox/%3c509d55a8.30...@gmail.com%3E
is still true
please review that response below and consider 2/4 word tokes
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:19:20 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 21.01.2016 um 13:11 schrieb RW:
> > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:21:49 -0800
> > Marc Perkel wrote:
> >
> >> OK - Just to show you this isn't Bayesian - see if you can do this.
> >>
> >> Here is a list of 5505874 words and phrases used in
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:21:49 -0800
Marc Perkel wrote:
> OK - Just to show you this isn't Bayesian - see if you can do this.
>
> Here is a list of 5505874 words and phrases used in the subject line
> of HAM and never seen in the subject line of SPAM
>
>
On 01/21/2016 01:25 PM, Robert Chalmers wrote:
I’m looking for a way to just dump mail that has the header modified with the
* SPAM * assignment.
I mean, not have the Client mail reader do it, just have either spamd, or
postfix/dovecot dump it.
I’m sure I’ve seen something
Am 21.01.2016 um 13:34 schrieb Antony Stone:
On Thursday 21 January 2016 at 13:31:29, Reindl Harald wrote:
On 01/21/2016 01:25 PM, Robert Chalmers wrote:
I’m looking for a way to just dump mail that has the header modified
with the * SPAM * assignment.
I mean, not have the
Antony Stone kirjoitti 21.1.2016 14:34:
On Thursday 21 January 2016 at 13:31:29, Reindl Harald wrote:
> On 01/21/2016 01:25 PM, Robert Chalmers wrote:
>> I’m looking for a way to just dump mail that has the header modified
>> with the * SPAM * assignment.
>>
>> I mean, not have
Am 21.01.2016 um 14:17 schrieb RW:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:45:08 +0100
Christian Laußat wrote:
Am 21.01.2016 13:19, schrieb Reindl Harald:
no entirely when "urrently, SA's bayes tokens are single words" from
On Thursday 21 January 2016 at 13:31:29, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > On 01/21/2016 01:25 PM, Robert Chalmers wrote:
> >> I’m looking for a way to just dump mail that has the header modified
> >> with the * SPAM * assignment.
> >>
> >> I mean, not have the Client mail reader do it,
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:11:15 +
RW wrote:
> "ambulatory care" -> only in ham
...
> is that you have discarded the count information.
And his assertion is not necessarily true, either. According to our
statistics, we've seen "ambulatory care" in 1400 spams, but
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:45:08 +0100
Christian Laußat wrote:
> Am 21.01.2016 13:19, schrieb Reindl Harald:
> > no entirely when "urrently, SA's bayes tokens are single words" from
> > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-dev/201211.mbox/%3c509d55a8.30...@gmail.com%3E
> > is still
Am 21.01.2016 um 13:11 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:21:49 -0800
Marc Perkel wrote:
OK - Just to show you this isn't Bayesian - see if you can do this.
Here is a list of 5505874 words and phrases used in the subject line
of HAM and never seen in the subject line of SPAM
I use amavis-new to do this:
amavisd.conf
$log_level = 1; # set the log level to one
$sa_tag_level_deflt = -999; # i want to see the headers so change
to -99
$sa_tag2_level_deflt = 5.0; # start with 5
$sa_kill_level_deflt = 9; # change to 9
$sa_dsn_cutoff_level = 9; #
That looks to be just what I want. I now have it running, so will see how it
goes. Thanks for that. Much appreciated
There are a few other really good options, but this one is nice and compact, no
extra scripts.
I’m running amavis-new, postfix with postscreen fairly heavily in use, dovecot,
I’m looking for a way to just dump mail that has the header modified with the
* SPAM * assignment.
I mean, not have the Client mail reader do it, just have either spamd, or
postfix/dovecot dump it.
I’m sure I’ve seen something about doing this, but can’t find it now…. lost in
Am 21.01.2016 um 13:29 schrieb Axb:
On 01/21/2016 01:25 PM, Robert Chalmers wrote:
I’m looking for a way to just dump mail that has the header modified
with the * SPAM * assignment.
I mean, not have the Client mail reader do it, just have either spamd,
or postfix/dovecot
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:21:49 -0800
Marc Perkel wrote:
> Here is a list of 5505874 words and phrases used in the subject line
> of HAM and never seen in the subject line of SPAM
> Here is a list of 3494938 words and phrases used in the subject line
> of SPAM and
On Thursday 21 January 2016 at 13:11:15, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:21:49 -0800 Marc Perkel wrote:
> > OK - Just to show you this isn't Bayesian - see if you can do this.
> >
> > Here is a list of 5505874 words and phrases used in the subject line
> > of HAM and never seen in the subject
Am 21.01.2016 um 07:21 schrieb Marc Perkel:
OK - Just to show you this isn't Bayesian - see if you can do this.
Here is a list of 5505874 words and phrases used in the subject line of
HAM and never seen in the subject line of SPAM
http://www.junkemailfilter.com/data/subject-ham.txt
Here is
Just to let anyone else know who may be interested. This appears to have solved
the last little bit of spam getting through, as well as removing email that had
the addition to the Subject line of the SPAM** signal.
I haven’t had ANY spam sneak through now since I implemented this.
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, RW wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:31:09 +0100
Christian Laußat wrote:
Am 21.01.2016 14:17, schrieb RW:
The FNs dropped from 287 to 69, which I'd call a four-fold
improvement.
The FPs rose from 0 to 1, but that mail was ham quoting a full
spam, so arguably it just did a
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:31:09 +0100
Christian Laußat wrote:
> Am 21.01.2016 14:17, schrieb RW:
> > The FNs dropped from 287 to 69, which I'd call a four-fold
> > improvement.
> >
> > The FPs rose from 0 to 1, but that mail was ham quoting a full
> > spam, so arguably it just did a better job in
On 01/21/2016 05:42 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
20160120: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160120
20160120: Spam: 131777, Ham: 142710
Oooo, so close!
My spam levels are extremely low so I've
Am 21.01.2016 um 20:38 schrieb RW:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 08:53:10 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
There was an improvement in FP and FN from two tokens. The marginal
improvement from three doesn't seem worth it.
The improvement from 2 to 3 is more substantial than from 1 to 2
287/160 =
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
20160120: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160120
20160120: Spam: 131777, Ham: 142710
Oooo, so close!
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
Am 21.01.2016 um 17:53 schrieb John Hardin:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, RW wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:31:09 +0100
Christian Laußat wrote:
Am 21.01.2016 14:17, schrieb RW:
The FNs dropped from 287 to 69, which I'd call a four-fold
improvement.
The FPs rose from 0 to 1, but that mail was ham
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, RW wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 08:53:10 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
There was an improvement in FP and FN from two tokens. The marginal
improvement from three doesn't seem worth it.
The improvement from 2 to 3 is more substantial than from 1 to 2
287/160 = 1.79
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 08:53:10 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> There was an improvement in FP and FN from two tokens. The marginal
> improvement from three doesn't seem worth it.
The improvement from 2 to 3 is more substantial than from 1 to 2
287/160 = 1.79
160/69 = 2.3
Whether any of
27 matches
Mail list logo