On 7 May 2022, Henrik K. spake thusly:
> There's lots of common headers that are basically huge base64 strings,
> creating stupid amounts of random Bayes tokens.
Honestly I'm wondering if a simpler way to deal with these might simply
be to detect lengthy bayes64ed regions in headers (not
implemented?
Honestly I couldn't care less, since I've already ignored them locally.
Just figured they would save few database bytes globally. This is not
something I want to waste time running 10-fold cross validations anyway.
why have that bayes_ignore_header support in spamassassin
implemented?
Honestly I couldn't care less, since I've already ignored them locally.
Just figured they would save few database bytes globally. This is not
something I want to waste time running 10-fold cross validations
anyway.
why have that bayes_ignore_header support in spamassassin
On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 11:29:29AM -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
>
> I have not researched all of those, but I believe that some of those
> should in theory be useful in Bayes.
So is someone going to research them then? And the 268 older headers that
axb already implemented?
Honestly I couldn't care
need to have opt out for bayes_ignore_header ?
2) moving everything to 23_bayes.cf?
+1
+1
On 2022-05-07 at 04:42:25 UTC-0400 (Sat, 7 May 2022 11:42:25 +0300)
Henrik K
is rumored to have said:
> There's lots of common headers that are basically huge base64 strings,
> creating stupid amounts of random Bayes tokens.
>
> Apparently rulesrc/sandbox/axb/23_bayes_ignore_header.cf was
On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 11:27:03AM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 2022-05-07 16:55, Henrik K wrote:
> > On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 04:47:37PM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > > > So no header would be tokenized by default, unless there is
> > > > "bayes_allow_header From To Received" etc.
> > >
>
On 2022-05-07 16:55, Henrik K wrote:
On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 04:47:37PM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> So no header would be tokenized by default, unless there is
> "bayes_allow_header From To Received" etc.
yes i belive this is "install and forget", needed good headers dont
change
Who
On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 04:47:37PM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > So no header would be tokenized by default, unless there is
> > "bayes_allow_header From To Received" etc.
>
> yes i belive this is "install and forget", needed good headers dont change
Who knows what are "good headers" and if
On 2022-05-07 16:37, Henrik K wrote:
Ok I got it now..
and its not yet monday ? :)
So no header would be tokenized by default, unless there is
"bayes_allow_header From To Received" etc.
yes i belive this is "install and forget", needed good headers dont
change
Dunno, it might help or
ed, and
> > > it would not need much updates either, and also less memory usage is
> > > needed
> >
> > Please explain how "bayes_indexed_header" (whatever it is) would make
> > less
> > lines, and me not needing to add "bayes_ignore_header
>
"bayes_indexed_header" (whatever it is) would make
less
lines, and me not needing to add "bayes_ignore_header
X-Microsoft-Antispam"
manually so it won't fill my database with garbage.
i provided a way to define wanted, axb provided a way to define unwanted
eod
is) would make less
lines, and me not needing to add "bayes_ignore_header X-Microsoft-Antispam"
manually so it won't fill my database with garbage.
On 2022-05-07 15:58, Henrik K wrote:
I don't understand what you mean with "trust".
sorry my wording on it then :/
bayes_ignore_header is used for ignoring headers that produces random
garbage tokens, or too common ones that have no use for classifying
other
messages.
lets jus
t; From is twise in above
>
> i think dkim h= could be trusted in bayes, instaed of defining untrusted
> bayes_header_ignore randomheader
I don't understand what you mean with "trust".
bayes_ignore_header is used for ignoring headers that produces random
garbage tokens, or too
On 2022-05-07 15:19, Henrik K wrote:
3) a better patch :=)
Sorry, I tried reading three times, but I don't understand your
suggestion..
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hege.li; s=hege2;
t=1651929565; bh=mDJa8KTm9fQckBvDRBvqjvPDd2nTerfIP3931ZK07fQ=;
On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 03:08:08PM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 2022-05-07 10:42, Henrik K wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't these be better put directly into bayes/23_bayes.cf instead of
> > some
> > sandbox, that's intended more for testing rules than changing SA config?
>
> i think we would change
On 2022-05-07 10:42, Henrik K wrote:
Wouldn't these be better put directly into bayes/23_bayes.cf instead of
some
sandbox, that's intended more for testing rules than changing SA
config?
i think we would change it to be a list of headers always indexed, not
just random ignored ?
could be
There's lots of common headers that are basically huge base64 strings,
creating stupid amounts of random Bayes tokens.
Apparently rulesrc/sandbox/axb/23_bayes_ignore_header.cf was created to
handle some of these already?
I've found atleast these missing:
IronPort-SDR
Unless somebody thinks this a terribly bad idea, I'll be adding a
20_bayes_ignore_header.cf to the SA default rules to replace the few
(unmantained) bayes_ignore_header entries in local.cf
comments?
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 11:32:17 +0200
Axb wrote:
Unless somebody thinks this a terribly bad idea, I'll be adding a
20_bayes_ignore_header.cf to the SA default rules to replace the few
(unmantained) bayes_ignore_header entries in local.cf
comments?
I'd like to see some evidence
On 10/04/2014 03:18 PM, RW wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 11:32:17 +0200
Axb wrote:
Unless somebody thinks this a terribly bad idea, I'll be adding a
20_bayes_ignore_header.cf to the SA default rules to replace the few
(unmantained) bayes_ignore_header entries in local.cf
comments?
I'd like
On 10/4/2014 5:32 AM, Axb wrote:
Unless somebody thinks this a terribly bad idea, I'll be adding a
20_bayes_ignore_header.cf to the SA default rules to replace the few
(unmantained) bayes_ignore_header entries in local.cf
comments?
Far as I'm concerned, you are the reining Bayes expert
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4492
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4492
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 09:17 ---
+1
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4492
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|Undefined |3.1.5
--- Additional
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4492
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bayes_ignore_header matching|[review] bayes_ignore_header
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4492
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 00:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=3621)
-- (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3621action=view)
suggested patch
--- You are receiving
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4492
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status Whiteboard|needs 2 votes |needs 1 vote
---
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4492
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status Whiteboard|needs 1 vote|can be commited
---
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4492
Summary: bayes_ignore_header matching is case sensitive
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 3.0.4
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4492
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-20 12:00 ---
agreed, should be case-i
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
32 matches
Mail list logo
