Re: Is there a way to block "invalid" non delivery notifications?
From: "Daniel Lemke"
Sent: Friday, 2010/July/02 06:36
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
apparently not enough of NDRs. I trained bayes with many notices and it
was
able to detect as expected then.
It apparently does learn the ndrs given, but as we send a newsletter from
time to time (that produces ndrs as well), Bayes seems to learn ndrs as
ham
continuously.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
BAYES_99 and CHARSET_FARAWAY together should score enough to score as
spam.
*BOUNCE_MESSAGE score only 0.1 and rising them is not safe.
Is it such a bad idea to rise the score? Or is the general purpose to
combine it with some sort of meta?
By the way, is it possible to rescore or disable one rule, if another
already hit (thought on something like disabling bayes when BOUNCE_MESSAGE
already hit)? This way I could disable Bayes when BOUNCE_MESSAGE already
hit. Yeah I know that's kind of bogus config but it'd be very suitable for
our purpose.
META rules are good for this sort of application.
{^_^}
Re: SUBJ_ALL_CAPS vs. RE:
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 09:25 +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> SUBJ_ALL_CAPS to you, but not to me:
> Subject: RE: 柯小柯
> Can't you give the RE: etc. a break?
> And also why is the Chinese considered CAPS?
Err, dude. Just venting here, I guess, because you got bit by this?
Bug 5859 [1]. In particular, have a close look at your own "me too"
comment 1.
What is the point of this post? You do know it's a bug, you do know it
is on record. That's where this issue should be handled. Constructive
comments and patches welcome. Venting and whining on the users list will
not get you anywhere.
guenther
[1] https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5859
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Is there a way to block "invalid" non delivery notifications?
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > apparently not enough of NDRs. I trained bayes with many notices and it > was > able to detect as expected then. > It apparently does learn the ndrs given, but as we send a newsletter from time to time (that produces ndrs as well), Bayes seems to learn ndrs as ham continuously. Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > BAYES_99 and CHARSET_FARAWAY together should score enough to score as > spam. > *BOUNCE_MESSAGE score only 0.1 and rising them is not safe. > Is it such a bad idea to rise the score? Or is the general purpose to combine it with some sort of meta? By the way, is it possible to rescore or disable one rule, if another already hit (thought on something like disabling bayes when BOUNCE_MESSAGE already hit)? This way I could disable Bayes when BOUNCE_MESSAGE already hit. Yeah I know that's kind of bogus config but it'd be very suitable for our purpose. Daniel -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Is-there-a-way-to-block-%22invalid%22-non-delivery-notifications--tp29032307p29056475.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
