Re: AWL demoted??

[RW]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:51:19 -0400
Matt Kettler  wrote:

>   On 8/11/2010 1:30 PM, RW wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 07:48:11 -0400
> > Matt Kettler  wrote:
> >
> >> 1) lack of expiry process causes unbounded database growth.
> >> There's a script to clean out single-hit entries, but multi-hit
> >> persist forever, even when stale. (there are no timestamps on
> >> entries, so expiry isn't possible at present).
> > I don't think AWL really needs timestamps. It could be maintained by
> > scaling down the count/token values and discarding entries where the
> > count rounds-down to zero.
> >
> Well, yes, but this doesn't solve the situation where someone stops 
> mailing you. 

I meant do it periodically

> They've got a nonzero average, and it will stay that way 
> forever if they stop emailing you.

I meant reducing both count and total score such that the count is
reduced, but the average remains unchanged.

Re: AWL demoted??

[Matt Kettler]

 On 8/11/2010 1:30 PM, RW wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 07:48:11 -0400
Matt Kettler  wrote:


1) lack of expiry process causes unbounded database growth. There's a
script to clean out single-hit entries, but multi-hit persist
forever, even when stale. (there are no timestamps on entries, so
expiry isn't possible at present).

I don't think AWL really needs timestamps. It could be maintained by
scaling down the count/token values and discarding entries where the
count rounds-down to zero.

Well, yes, but this doesn't solve the situation where someone stops 
mailing you. They've got a nonzero average, and it will stay that way 
forever if they stop emailing you.

Re: AWL demoted??

[RW]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:26:31 +0200
Benny Pedersen  wrote:

> On ons 11 aug 2010 19:35:35 CEST, RW wrote
> 
> > That should  be count/total-score not count/token.
> 
> total-score/count

I actually meant it in the sense of "a-stroke-b" rather than
"a-divided-by-b" 

 
> will also work with mask of 0.0.0.0/8 ?
> 
> sa below 3.3.x had it hardcoded to /16

I don't see why not, if you reduce the the count and multiply the
total-score value by new-count/old-count the ratio is the same. 

The differences are that the the average become a weighted average with
recent values getting more weight, and unused entries eventually get
aged-out.   

Re: AWL demoted??

[Benny Pedersen]

On ons 11 aug 2010 19:35:35 CEST, RW wrote


That should  be count/total-score not count/token.


total-score/count

will also work with mask of 0.0.0.0/8 ?

sa below 3.3.x had it hardcoded to /16

--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Re: AWL demoted??

[RW]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:30:17 +0100
RW  wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 07:48:11 -0400
> Matt Kettler  wrote:
> 
> > 1) lack of expiry process causes unbounded database growth. There's
> > a script to clean out single-hit entries, but multi-hit persist
> > forever, even when stale. (there are no timestamps on entries, so
> > expiry isn't possible at present).
> 
> I don't think AWL really needs timestamps. It could be maintained by
> scaling down the count/token values and discarding entries where the
> count rounds-down to zero.

That should  be count/total-score not count/token.

Re: AWL demoted??

[RW]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 07:48:11 -0400
Matt Kettler  wrote:

> 1) lack of expiry process causes unbounded database growth. There's a 
> script to clean out single-hit entries, but multi-hit persist
> forever, even when stale. (there are no timestamps on entries, so
> expiry isn't possible at present).

I don't think AWL really needs timestamps. It could be maintained by
scaling down the count/token values and discarding entries where the
count rounds-down to zero.

Re: AWL demoted??

[Matt Kettler]

 On 8/10/2010 7:55 PM, Dennis German wrote:

On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:...
due to performance vs accuracy issues, AWL was demoted in SA 3.3x.

Can you please define "demoted".


Changed from enabled by default to disabled by default, largely due to 
several issues that need fixing including:


1) lack of expiry process causes unbounded database growth. There's a 
script to clean out single-hit entries, but multi-hit persist forever, 
even when stale. (there are no timestamps on entries, so expiry isn't 
possible at present).


2) the large database from above eventually causes a noticeable 
performance hit, and the accuracy gains from AWL are small compared to 
the hit.


There's a proposal to rewrite it with a slightly different conceptual 
design to improve performance.




My ISP MidPhase.com ,  part of uk2group.com 
,  uses cpanel.net  (used by 
many ISPs)

which seems to be "stuck" on SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01)

I request they upgrade last year and they weren't interested.
I request this last week and they are still evaluating it.


Many are still using windows 2000 as well... /sigh.

Re: AWL demoted??

[RW]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:55:45 -0400
Dennis German  wrote:

> On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:...
> due to performance vs accuracy issues, AWL was demoted in SA 3.3x.
> 
> Can you please define "demoted".


It's no longer on by default.

Re: AWL demoted??

[LuKreme]

On 10-Aug-2010, at 17:55, Dennis German wrote:
> 
> My ISP MidPhase.com,  part of uk2group.com,  uses cpanel.net (used by many 
> ISPs) 
> which seems to be "stuck" on SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01)
> 
> I request they upgrade last year and they weren't interested. 
> I request this last week and they are still evaluating it.

Please tell them that running old SpamAssassin is like running old anti-virus 
software.


-- 
Instant karma's going to get you!

Re: AWL demoted??

[Benny Pedersen]

On ons 11 aug 2010 01:55:45 CEST, Dennis German wrote


I request they upgrade last year and they weren't interested.
I request this last week and they are still evaluating it.


you speak to the wrong people that maintains you server hosting and  
belive thay also make the spamassassin packages for there loosy  
outdated os ? :=)


if spamassassin is installed via rpm then speak to a rpm maintainer  
for that os and have your hoster upgrade with that


--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

AWL demoted??

[Dennis German]

On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:...
due to performance vs accuracy issues, AWL was demoted in SA 3.3x.

Can you please define "demoted".

My ISP MidPhase.com,  part of uk2group.com,  uses cpanel.net (used by many 
ISPs) 
which seems to be "stuck" on SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01)

I request they upgrade last year and they weren't interested. 
I request this last week and they are still evaluating it.

Thank you,

Dennis German