Sandy -
I am using your "-e" switch that returns the rounded weight that is
accrued. Would it be possible to set a threshold and then the weight
would be returned? eg a min value before the switch works.
For example once the weight reaches 4 return the accrued weight. <4
return 0?
Hope I'm
04 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] ANN: SPAMC32 (SpamAssassin SPAMC for
Declude) 0.5.57 released
Darin,
If its an unsigned 4-byte wouldnt it be 4,294,967,295 tests?
Darrell
Darin Cox writes:
> This is the same idea I mentioned a year ago when we were all talking
about combo tests in Declude
hieve the same combo test results.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Matt
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] ANN: SPAMC32 (SpamAssassin SPAMC for
Declude) 0.5.57 released
Darin,Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was expe
.
But the real question still remains of whether 2 or 4-byte ints are used.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Pete McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Darin Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:38 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.Junk
> Regarding SPAMCHK I can't see any benefit for bitmask return codes.
Yeah, me neither with SPAMC32.
I do like the positive/negative concept, and I'd go it one further: a
WEIGHTXn test type, which allows you to multiply the test result by n.
This would allow for negative returns:
SPAMCHK+ wei
Markus Gufler wrote:
The only thing that would be usefull is, if we can differentiate between
positive and negative results. Or in other words: If we want to combine or
analyze SpamChk results it's not so important if the result was +10 or +40.
But it's a big difference if the result was -10 or +10
> 1) Do other people want this functionality in external
> apps such as Sniffer (please speak up if either for or
> against being able to score multiple hits)?
> 2) Would Declude be willing to introduce the functionality?
Regarding SPAMCHK I can't see any benefit for bitmask return code
Pete McNeil wrote:
I'm not sure this is really going to be that useful - certainly it
would be more complex - but if enough people are interested in the
feature then I would build it.
I think this would be most useful in combining hits for SNIFFER-IP
and/or SNIFFER-EXPERIMENTAL with categorized
On Friday, November 5, 2004, 8:51:04 AM, Darin wrote:
DC> Also, I don't know for sure whether Scott or Pete use
DC> unsigned 4-byte ints for the weights. Scott actually probably
DC> uses signed ints, so you lose half of the bits...and if the
DC> weight is a 2-byte signed int then the number of
On Friday, November 5, 2004, 8:53:41 AM, Matt wrote:
M> Pete,
M> I'm sure that you would make this optional regardless, but the
M> functionality would definitely far outweigh the minor bit of confusion
M> when looking at the logs. If you simply published a map of the bits to
M> the result code
the multi.surbl.org SURBL would be an excellent fit for bitmasks
too.
- Original Message -
From:
Matt
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 8:04
AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] ANN:
SPAMC32 (SpamAssassin SPAMC for Declude) 0.5.57 released
al Message -
From:
Matt
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] ANN: SPAMC32
(SpamAssassin SPAMC for Declude) 0.5.57 released
If you don't mind me expanding on the bitmask ideaSniffer use
weight/bitmask number is a 4-byte unsigned int, then we have a maximum of 32 tests.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Matt
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] ANN: SPAMC32 (SpamAssassin SPAMC for Declude) 0.5.57 released
If
Pete,
I'm sure that you would make this optional regardless, but the
functionality would definitely far outweigh the minor bit of confusion
when looking at the logs. If you simply published a map of the bits to
the result code logged, that would be plenty fine as far as I'm
concerned. In my e
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Matt
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] ANN: SPAMC32 (SpamAssassin SPAMC for
Declude) 0.5.57 released
I could deal with 32 result codes for a single test :)I'm
hoping that Pete will weigh in on this.
kMail] ANN: SPAMC32
(SpamAssassin SPAMC for Declude) 0.5.57 released
If you don't mind me expanding on the bitmask ideaSniffer users
would benefit from this greatly as many spams fail multiple Sniffer
tests. This would allow us to score each result code that it returned,
i.e.
There is an additional challenge with working Sniffer this way.
Sniffer uses a competitive selection function to derive a single
result value... this helps to prioritize the rule strength analysis.
If I were to map symbols to bits (which would happen in the .cfg file)
then the log file would need
.
- Original Message -
From: Matt
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] ANN: SPAMC32 (SpamAssassin SPAMC for
Declude) 0.5.57 released
If you don't mind me expanding on the bitmask ideaSniffer
users would benefit from
If you don't mind me expanding on the bitmask ideaSniffer users
would benefit from this greatly as many spams fail multiple Sniffer
tests. This would allow us to score each result code that it returned,
i.e.
SNIFFER-GENERAL bitmask 1
"C:\IMail\Declude\Sniffer\execo
Yes, I would be interested in this very much since it would greatly
ease the management, testing and reporting of such tests, and I have
been working on something myself that would be capable of returning
both positive and negative weights and I didn't want to be running it
twice to get the sep
> Yet another update to SPAMC32 that's useful when deployed as
> a Declude 'weight' test type. See the release notes below
> and download from the traditional /release folder.
As SpamChk is not anymore alone as external 'weight' test maybe also SPAMC32
users are interested in having 'weight+'
All,
Yet another update to SPAMC32 that's useful when deployed as a Declude
'weight' test type. See the release notes below and download from the
traditional /release folder.
--Sandy
--
SPAMC32 Release 0.5.57
11/3/2004
*
Release notes for
22 matches
Mail list logo
