On 11/6/2017 11:29 AM, Merijn van den Kroonenberg wrote:
I saw some messages on the list indicating that rule updates were going
to resume starting about a week ago. I haven't heard anything since and
still have not seen any updates. What is the current status?
Its a work in progress, there
> I saw some messages on the list indicating that rule updates were going
> to resume starting about a week ago. I haven't heard anything since and
> still have not seen any updates. What is the current status?
Its a work in progress, there was some feedback and some changes which had
to be ma
On 06/08/2017 05:46 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
it worked exactly one time
Am 06.06.2017 um 17:29 schrieb David Jones:
FYI We have the rule build scripts working for updates via sa-update.
Default rule scores are also updating thanks to our masscheckers out
there.
https://wiki.apache.org/spama
If you join, you might relax a bit on rejecting spam, but saving it
for masschecks.Thats what I do... I do reject something, but not
everything I could.
That's probably not a good idea if it leads to unrepresentative spam.
In particular it may lead to botnet related tests being seriously
oversc
On 3.6.2016 19.21, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, RW wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:54:59 +0300
>> Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>>>
>>> If you join, you might relax a bit on rejecting spam, but saving it
>>> for masschecks.Thats what I do... I do reject something, but not
>>> everything I
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, RW wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:54:59 +0300
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
If you join, you might relax a bit on rejecting spam, but saving it
for masschecks.Thats what I do... I do reject something, but not
everything I could.
That's probably not a good idea if it leads to unr
On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:54:59 +0300
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>
> If you join, you might relax a bit on rejecting spam, but saving it
> for masschecks.Thats what I do... I do reject something, but not
> everything I could.
That's probably not a good idea if it leads to unrepresentative spam.
In
3. kesäkuuta 2016 16.46.59 GMT+03:00 "Kim Roar Foldøy Hauge"
kirjoitti:
>On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, John Hardin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
>>
>>> 20160602: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000:
>>> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160602
>>> 2016060
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
20160602: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160602
20160602: Spam: 589792, Ham: 138721
We've been hovering *just* below the ham threshold for a wee
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
20160602: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160602
20160602: Spam: 589792, Ham: 138721
We've been hovering *just* below the ham threshold for a week or so now.
Anyone who can contribute to
Am 29.02.2016 um 17:57 schrieb John Hardin:
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
20160228: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160228
20160228: Spam: 108401, Ham: 191807
Masscheck is spam-starved again, rules updates will be s
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
20160228: Spam or ham is below threshold of 150,000:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20160228
20160228: Spam: 108401, Ham: 191807
Masscheck is spam-starved again, rules updates will be spotty or
nonexistent this week.
--
John H
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
20160122: Spam: 156567, Ham: 200399
Looks like we may get an update...
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C
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
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/
jhar...@i
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
20160119: Spam: 123699, Ham: 199560
...almost there...
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 1
On 01/09/2015 01:23 AM, Adam Katz wrote:
Ran these against my corpus. Here are the worst performers (lots in
common with RW's complaints):
*SPAM% HAM%S/O NAME*
0.013 0.153 0.080 __RULEGEN_PHISH_BLR6YY
0.006 0.286 0.022 __RULEGEN_PHISH_0ATBRI
0.008 0.334 0.023 __RULEGEN_PHISH_L3I
Ran these against my corpus. Here are the worst performers (lots in
common with RW's complaints):
*SPAM% HAM%S/O NAME*
0.013 0.153 0.080 __RULEGEN_PHISH_BLR6YY
0.006 0.286 0.022 __RULEGEN_PHISH_0ATBRI
0.008 0.334 0.023 __RULEGEN_PHISH_L3I0Z5
0.002 0.300 0.006 __RULEGEN_PHISH_LG
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 12:35:04 +0100
Axb wrote:
> On 12/18/2014 06:27 PM, RW wrote:
> > Unless there's a bug, the fact that those disclaimer phrases got
> > through suggests that these rules are either intended to be very
> > much more aggressive than the SOUGHT rules, or the ham corpus
> > isn't
On 12/18/2014 06:27 PM, RW wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:10:05 +0100
Axb wrote:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/sare/files/
replaces any older version.
leech while it lasts
adjust scores if needed..
There are some rules that shouldn't be there. (I only tested a few that
looked the mo
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014, RW wrote:
Unless there's a bug, the fact that those disclaimer phrases got through
suggests that these rules are either intended to be very much more
aggressive than the SOUGHT rules, or the ham corpus isn't good enough.
Probably the latter.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:10:05 +0100
Axb wrote:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/sare/files/
>
> replaces any older version.
>
> leech while it lasts
>
> adjust scores if needed..
There are some rules that shouldn't be there. (I only tested a few that
looked the most dubious)
The first i
On 12/17/2014 04:08 PM, btb wrote:
On 2014.12.16 07.10, Axb wrote:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/sare/files/
thanks for this. it's particularly timely for us, as we've just
recently been pretty badly phished.
is there a method which can be used to measure/report on the efficacy of
these p
On 2014.12.16 07.10, Axb wrote:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/sare/files/
thanks for this. it's particularly timely for us, as we've just
recently been pretty badly phished.
is there a method which can be used to measure/report on the efficacy of
these particular rules?
-ben
On 05/22/2014 03:36 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 5/22/2014 9:04 AM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
>> After checking the results of sa-update and doing some manual dns
>> queries, it seems that last rule updates were done more than a month
>> ago. This used to be an almost daily process, even when there w
On 5/22/2014 9:04 AM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
After checking the results of sa-update and doing some manual dns
queries, it seems that last rule updates were done more than a month
ago. This used to be an almost daily process, even when there were only
score changes due to masschecks.
Any specific r
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Jim Popovitch wrote:
I just got a new update. THANKS
Now, what can I do to contribute to providing updates?
Start generating hand-classified spam and ham corpora, set up SVN to keep
a local up-to-date snapshot of SA and the rules sandboxes, then start
running local
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 13:51, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
>
>> On 10/19, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>>
>>> Is the missing entity one person, several people, many people? Was
>>> there an untimely death? I believe everyone is now aware that there
>>> exist
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 10/19, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Is the missing entity one person, several people, many people? Was
there an untimely death? I believe everyone is now aware that there
exists a problem, how to we bridge the gap?
My guess is that the only per
On 10/19, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> Is the missing entity one person, several people, many people? Was
> there an untimely death? I believe everyone is now aware that there
> exists a problem, how to we bridge the gap?
My guess is that the only person familiar with the system is the original
autho
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:26, wrote:
> On 10/05, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 17:41, RW wrote:
>> > The usual reason for a hiatus is that too much spam or ham has aged-out
>> > in the corpora, and a top-up is needed.
>
> I think it's more accurate to say the usual reason is th
On 10/05, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 17:41, RW wrote:
> > The usual reason for a hiatus is that too much spam or ham has aged-out
> > in the corpora, and a top-up is needed.
I think it's more accurate to say the usual reason is that too many people
have stopped automatically su
On 10/5/2011 5:46 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 17:41, RW wrote:
>> The usual reason for a hiatus is that too much spam or ham has aged-out
>> in the corpora, and a top-up is needed.
>
> So, how do we get it top-up'ed?
>
Anyone know if the 'usual reason' is because there are
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 17:41, RW wrote:
> The usual reason for a hiatus is that too much spam or ham has aged-out
> in the corpora, and a top-up is needed.
So, how do we get it top-up'ed?
-Jim P.
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:50:08 +0200
Lars Jørgensen wrote:
> On 04-10-2011 15:39, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> > what is 'long'?
>
> As you can see from your own example, rules were updated daily until
> august 26th. Then there hasn't been any updates since. That is 'long'
> for me.
>
> I can also
On 04-10-2011 15:43, Jim Popovitch wrote:
what is 'long'?
Since 27-Aug-2011 ?
So, not just me then.
--
Lars
On 04-10-2011 15:39, Michael Scheidell wrote:
what is 'long'?
As you can see from your own example, rules were updated daily until
august 26th. Then there hasn't been any updates since. That is 'long'
for me.
I can also see that updates are daily for 3.4.0 currently. Does that
mean that up
On 04/10/2011 14:39, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 10/4/11 3:07 AM, Lars Jørgensen wrote:
Hi,
Is it me or has it been a long time since there has been an update to
the spamassassin ruleset?
Most common reasons for a problem (IME, on FreeBSD)
Incorrect permissions on directory
Incorrect pe
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 09:39, Michael Scheidell
wrote:
> On 10/4/11 3:07 AM, Lars Jørgensen wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is it me or has it been a long time since there has been an update to the
>> spamassassin ruleset?
>>
>>
> what is 'long'?
Since 27-Aug-2011 ?
$ ll /var/lib/spamassassin/3.003001/up
On 10/4/11 3:07 AM, Lars Jørgensen wrote:
Hi,
Is it me or has it been a long time since there has been an update to
the spamassassin ruleset?
what is 'long'?
ls -lt *.tar.gz | grep 'gz$' | head
-rw-r--r-- 1 rsync rsync 170211 Oct 4 04:51 1178724.tar.gz <-- 3.4.0
-rw-r--r-- 1 rsync rs
On 6/27/2011 7:03 AM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 06/27, Lars Jørgensen wrote:
I noticed the rules for 3.3.1 were updated during the weekend (don't worry
about my workaholism, I noticed this monday morning ^-^). I was preparing
to upgrade to 3.3.2, but seeing the updated rules m
On 06/27, Lars Jørgensen wrote:
>I noticed the rules for 3.3.1 were updated during the weekend (don't worry
>about my workaholism, I noticed this monday morning ^-^). I was preparing
>to upgrade to 3.3.2, but seeing the updated rules makes me doubt whether
>the upgrade is necessary.
The rule updates is handled by themselfs but some require certains versions
of spamassassin (see /var/lib/spamassassin) or man sa-update
Lars Jørgensen-6 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I noticed the rules for 3.3.1 were updated during the weekend (don't worry
> about my workaholism, I noticed this monday
Matthias Haegele wrote:
> Patrick schrieb:
>> I'm a little confused on rule updates. If you are using SA version
>> 3.04 and run sa-update and/or rulesdujour, will the rules be updated
>> only to the 3.0 branch or will they be updated to the most current
>> branch and just fail if there are depend
Patrick schrieb:
I'm a little confused on rule updates. If you are using SA version 3.04
and run sa-update and/or rulesdujour, will the rules be updated only to
the 3.0 branch or will they be updated to the most current branch and
just fail if there are dependency issues?
rulesdujour: You sh
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 11:17:56AM -0500, Patrick wrote:
> I'm a little confused on rule updates. If you are using SA version 3.04
> and run sa-update and/or rulesdujour, will the rules be updated only to the
> 3.0 branch or will they be updated to the most current branch and just fail
> if the
46 matches
Mail list logo
