On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 12:48:11 -0500
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> I haven't done as much testing on this as I'd like, but I've gotten
> away from it, and wanted to get my thoughts in here before I forget
> them.
>
> I have a strong suspicion that SA's bayes implementation sucks.
>
> The two majo
On 11/09, Axb wrote:
> releases, as part of final QA but bayes scores shouldn't be mutable.
They aren't, and wouldn't be as a result of adding the "reuse" flag,
because they're not in a "" block. And I
certainly wouldn't suggest changing that without at least seeing some data
first, and a test ru
On 11/09/2012 09:21 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 11/09, Axb wrote:
I realize some of the corpora won't have the bayes data, including most of
mine. But I don't see how that's a reason not to provide the data that has
already been calculated to ruleqa.
coz chances are it's skewed data
On 11/09, Axb wrote:
> >I realize some of the corpora won't have the bayes data, including most of
> >mine. But I don't see how that's a reason not to provide the data that has
> >already been calculated to ruleqa.
>
> coz chances are it's skewed data are huge?
>
> imo disabling bayes at massche
On 11/09/2012 09:11 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 11/9/2012 2:50 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 11/09, Axb wrote:
On 11/09/2012 05:58 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
I think these should be added to the rules:
reuse BAYES_00
reuse BAYES_05
reuse BAYES_20
reuse BAYES_40
reuse BAYES_50
On 11/9/2012 2:50 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 11/09, Axb wrote:
On 11/09/2012 05:58 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
I think these should be added to the rules:
reuse BAYES_00
reuse BAYES_05
reuse BAYES_20
reuse BAYES_40
reuse BAYES_50
reuse BAYES_60
reuse BAYES_80
reuse BAYES_95
reu
* dar...@chaosreigns.com :
...
> One of my questions is, does it make sense to continue to maintain bayesian
> stuff within SA at all? Or should we drop it, and encourage people to run
> a pure bayesian classifier before SA (like spamprobe), then have rules that
> read the headers from those cla
On 11/09, Axb wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 05:58 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> >I think these should be added to the rules:
> >
> >reuse BAYES_00
> >reuse BAYES_05
> >reuse BAYES_20
> >reuse BAYES_40
> >reuse BAYES_50
> >reuse BAYES_60
> >reuse BAYES_80
> >reuse BAYES_95
> >reuse BAYES_99
> >
> >Re
On 11/09/2012 06:48 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
I haven't done as much testing on this as I'd like, but I've gotten away
from it, and wanted to get my thoughts in here before I forget them.
I have a strong suspicion that SA's bayes implementation sucks.
The two major problems, as I see th
On 11/09/2012 05:58 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
I think these should be added to the rules:
reuse BAYES_00
reuse BAYES_05
reuse BAYES_20
reuse BAYES_40
reuse BAYES_50
reuse BAYES_60
reuse BAYES_80
reuse BAYES_95
reuse BAYES_99
Recently playing around a little with bayes stuff, I noticed t
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6864
Darxus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dar...@chaosreigns.com
--- Comment #4
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6864
--- Comment #3 from Mark Martinec ---
> Granted it's valid, but it's apparently very common in spam generated by
> sloppy tools and not common in mail from well-written MUAs. Could you get
> the X-Mailer from the headers so we know what
I haven't done as much testing on this as I'd like, but I've gotten away
from it, and wanted to get my thoughts in here before I forget them.
I have a strong suspicion that SA's bayes implementation sucks.
The two major problems, as I see them:
1) Lack of learn-on-fail.
2) Lack of multi-word toke
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6864
John Hardin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jhar...@impsec.org
--- Comment #2
I think these should be added to the rules:
reuse BAYES_00
reuse BAYES_05
reuse BAYES_20
reuse BAYES_40
reuse BAYES_50
reuse BAYES_60
reuse BAYES_80
reuse BAYES_95
reuse BAYES_99
Recently playing around a little with bayes stuff, I noticed there is no
data for these in http://ruleqa.spamassassin.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6864
--- Comment #1 from Mark Martinec ---
Created attachment 5111
--> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=5111&action=edit
sample mail message
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6864
Priority: P2
Bug ID: 6864
Assignee: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Summary: Excessive score (6.1) from FROM_MISSP_URI,
FROM_MISSP_EH_MATCH, TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP
Severi
17 matches
Mail list logo