https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6854
Mark Martinec changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Axb,
> Such a sample doesn't convince me (Yet) as it doesn't show potential FPs
> due scans on raw encoded attachments after 4 lines of txt/html as well
> as timing per body rule type.
> Could you let me have this sample corpus to compare results with
> spamc/spamd under different conditions?
(a
On 10/24/2012 02:34 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
On Tuesday October 23 2012 22:26:00 Axb wrote:
Spamc/Spamd's "skip size" method has made a huge *positive* difference
on FPs, and scan times.
The FNs wouldn't *ever* have been caught by a chunk method due to the
kind of content included "above" thres
On Tuesday October 23 2012 22:26:00 Axb wrote:
> Spamc/Spamd's "skip size" method has made a huge *positive* difference
> on FPs, and scan times.
> The FNs wouldn't *ever* have been caught by a chunk method due to the
> kind of content included "above" threshold.
Out of curiosity, during the last
On 10/23/2012 11:29 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Axb wrote:
On 10/23/2012 10:48 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> My thoughts were to ignore any binary attachments.
I don't think that's justified. I'm beginning to see a resurgence of
ima
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Axb wrote:
On 10/23/2012 10:48 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> My thoughts were to ignore any binary attachments.
I don't think that's justified. I'm beginning to see a resurgence of
image spams that the OCR plugin would probably
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:02:37PM +0200, Axb wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 10:48 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> >On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> >
> >>My thoughts were to ignore any binary attachments.
> >
> >I don't think that's justified. I'm beginning to see a resurgence of
> >image spams tha
On 10/23/2012 4:48 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
My thoughts were to ignore any binary attachments.
I don't think that's justified. I'm beginning to see a resurgence of
image spams that the OCR plugin would probably catch. Plus I fairly
regularly see 41
On 10/23/2012 10:48 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
My thoughts were to ignore any binary attachments.
I don't think that's justified. I'm beginning to see a resurgence of
image spams that the OCR plugin would probably catch. Plus I fairly
regularly see 419
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
My thoughts were to ignore any binary attachments.
I don't think that's justified. I'm beginning to see a resurgence of image
spams that the OCR plugin would probably catch. Plus I fairly regularly
see 419 spams with the body of the pitch in a PDF
On 10/23/2012 10:15 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:> On 10/23/2012 4:10 PM,
Axb wrote:
>> On 10/23/2012 09:59 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2012 3:48 PM, bugzilla-dae...@issues.apache.org wrote:
A message larger than a certain configured size is truncated
at the configured size a
On 10/23/2012 4:10 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/23/2012 09:59 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/23/2012 3:48 PM, bugzilla-dae...@issues.apache.org wrote:
A message larger than a certain configured size is truncated
at the configured size and that is what SpamAssassin sees.
No other contents processing
On 10/23/2012 09:59 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/23/2012 3:48 PM, bugzilla-dae...@issues.apache.org wrote:
A message larger than a certain configured size is truncated
at the configured size and that is what SpamAssassin sees.
No other contents processing in this data path, just
blunt trunc
On 10/23/2012 3:48 PM, bugzilla-dae...@issues.apache.org wrote:
A message larger than a certain configured size is truncated
at the configured size and that is what SpamAssassin sees.
No other contents processing in this data path, just
blunt truncation of the raw mail message. Works quite well,
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6854
--- Comment #3 from Mark Martinec ---
(> I'm not sure I understand:
> Does Amavisd send chuncks of raw message to SA instead of only the txt/html
> parts and leave "attachments" unscanned?
A message larger than a certain configured size
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6854
--- Comment #2 from AXB ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Created attachment 5102 [details]
> The low-hanging fruit
>
> Spent a day with a NYTProf 4.08 Perl profiler trying to cut down
> some of the inefficiencies of SpamAssassin dealing w
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6854
--- Comment #1 from Mark Martinec ---
trunk:
$ svn ci -m 'Bug 6854: Optimizations, profiling'
Sending lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf/Parser.pm
Sending lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Message.pm
Sending lib/Mail/SpamAssas
17 matches
Mail list logo
