a) what the heck are priorities, who sets them, and do they really have
any
justifiable purpose? Ie: can they just quietly vanish into the night
with
nobody being any the wiser?
They order the rules -- or more correctly, sets of rules.
Most rules are priority 500 (iirc), but some need
I was thinking about the 'best' wat to shortcut running rules when they
weren't needed, and suddenly realized there might be cases where it is
necessary to run them even though they won't determine the hammyness or
spammyness of the mail.
In particular, I'm wondering about bayes and awl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On (29/07/05 02:29), Loren Wilton didst pronounce:
As far as the SA classification is concerned, the -100 score is sufficient.
But is it sufficient for humans?
If you're considering a whitelist-from rule as the -100, then I think it
should be
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4161
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 08:37 ---
+1
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4502
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Habeas rules have malformed |[review] Habeas rules have
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3993
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 09:22 ---
This has become a problem for us -- if we want SPF_HELO_PASS to work for other
receivers that are using SpamAssassin.
In domain.municipality.prov.ca:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3993
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 09:45 ---
Subject: Re: RegistrarBoundaries::split_domain() handles city.state.us
incorrectly?
This has become a problem for us -- if we want SPF_HELO_PASS to work for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Loren Wilton writes:
Let me challenge or at least prod around the edges of this a bit to further
my understanding.
I think what you are saying is that priority is used (at least in part) to
do the ordering that is known or believed to be
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2385
Bug 2385 depends on bug 3109, which changed state.
Bug 3109 Summary: RFE: really simple this is ham shortcircuiting
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3109
What|Old Value |New Value
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3109
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Loren Wilton writes:
It seems obvious that we want to run that -100 rule first. If it hits, the
maximum possible score if *every* other rule hits will be 4, and with a
threshold of 5, the mail can't be spam. So we can stop after the -100 rule
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3993
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 12:48 ---
Okay, so the entire hostname is only for HELO checks and would mean that I'd
need two SPF records: one for the domain and one for the host?
You're right, I'm not
-Original Message-
From: scottn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 7:59 PM
To: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: PROPOSAL: create SpamAssassin Rules Project
... few rule writers.
This is explicitly what you (we) are trying to change.
Is
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 14:53 ---
I did a run with the full 2M corpus. Here are the results:
vm-set0-2.0-4.0-100
False positives: mean=0.0625% std=0.0263
False negatives: mean=21.8408%
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4507
Summary: Add support for URIBL.com
Product: Spamassassin
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Platform: Other
URL: http://www.uribl.com
OS/Version: other
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4507
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|Undefined |3.2.0
--- Additional
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
scottn writes:
... few rule writers.
This is explicitly what you (we) are trying to change.
Is there a HOWTO for prospective rules writers?
Examples maybe?
If so, it should be more obvious from the spamassassin main web page.
If not, then
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 16:03 ---
further info regarding the BSP_TRUSTED hits --
grep BSP_TRUSTED spam.log o
perl -ne '/ (\/[^\/]+\/[^\/]+\/[^\/]+)/ and print $1\n' o | uniq -c
792
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4507
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 16:06 ---
+1
looks good, although the fp rate on the grey list will need a look. I'd prefer
to set that to something like 0.1 until we have a good idea what it is.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4507
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 16:10 ---
Subject: Re: Add support for URIBL.com
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 04:06:35PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
looks good, although the fp rate on the grey list
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 16:29 ---
Here's an email Bob sent to sa-dev mailing list that looks like it was meant to
be a comment here. Or if not, I think it should be in the record here and it is
on
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 16:43 ---
Of course I should have said FN not FP in the last comment. And in case it is
not clear to someone reading this: constantcontact.com runs the Bonded Sender
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 17:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=3045)
-- (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/attachment.cgi?id=3045action=view)
Proposed scores for 3.1
gen-set0-2.0-4.0-100
# SUMMARY
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4504
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 17:58 ---
+1
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4502
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 18:00 ---
+1
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4161
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 18:05 ---
+1
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 19:41 ---
I hacked together something to make ROC curves... take a look.
current SVN trunk:
http://taint.org/xfer/2005/roc_curves_pre_perceptron.png
with the scores in
It seems obvious that we want to run that -100 rule first. If it hits, the
maximum possible score if *every* other rule hits will be 4, and with a
threshold of 5, the mail can't be spam. So we can stop after the -100 rule
hits, and only run one rule on this mail.
This just brought up an
It's sounding like the sc2 list is catching 10-15% more spam than
the sc list, based on some early reports of SA users. Is anyone
else getting some results?
Are there differences in ham hits?
Has anyone been able to run them through their test corpora?
How about xs.surbl.org?
Jeff C.
--
Don't
+score BAYES_50 0 0 0.845 0.001 # n=1
+score BAYES_60 0 0 2.312 0.372 # n=1
+score BAYES_80 0 0 2.775 2.087 # n=1
+score BAYES_95 0 0 3.023 2.063 # n=1
+score BAYES_99 0 0 2.960 1.886 # n=1
I think the score for BAYES_99 should be hand tweaked, regardless of what the
score generator said.
This
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-29 20:29 ---
Subject: Re: Score generation for SpamAssassin 3.1
+score BAYES_50 0 0 0.845 0.001 # n=1
+score BAYES_60 0 0 2.312 0.372 # n=1
+score BAYES_80 0 0 2.775 2.087 #
31 matches
Mail list logo
