https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #185 from Henrik Krohns h...@hege.li 2010-01-05 10:47:51 UTC ---
I have a hunch that FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT has a bit too high score
(1.553). Probably there wasn't enough nicedude90 ham in corpora. Strangely
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #180 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-12-02 07:31:01
UTC ---
Mark, please correct me if I am wrong. But it seems only you can complete the
final steps since we don't know exactly which subset of data you used.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #181 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-12-02 10:48:45
UTC ---
Ok, I think I'm done now (RescoreMassCheck):
5. generate scores for score sets
svn commit -m runGA config files used masses/config.set*
r886173 |
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #183 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-12-02 11:43:16
UTC ---
Why is active.list (the result of auto-promotion) relevant as input to this
script? Seems kind of like circular logic that makes no sense.
+
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #175 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-12-01 05:08:47 UTC ---
10_force_active.cf is generated at this step in the RescoreMassCheck process
(see https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155#c3):
6.5. mark
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|ma...@apache.org|
--
Configure
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #176 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-12-01 08:50:38
UTC ---
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/RescoreMassCheck
Mark, did you do these steps?
6. upload the test logs to zone
8. Make the stats files
8. upload
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #177 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-12-01 09:17:58
UTC ---
Mark, did you do these steps?
6. upload the test logs to zone
8. Make the stats files
8. upload new stats files
No, I left at the '5. generate
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #178 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-12-01 10:28:26
UTC ---
Mark, it appears that only you can do those steps?
--
Configure bugmail:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ma...@apache.org
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #173 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-11-27 09:13:25
UTC ---
Sendingrulesrc/10_force_active.cf
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 884912.
Please review.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #174 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-11-27 10:03:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #171)
Btw, the:
prove xt/10_rule_test_suite.t
is failing for several rules. Can someone more familiar with rules
please
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #172 from Daryl C. W. O'Shea spamassas...@dostech.ca 2009-11-26
17:24:49 UTC ---
Warren,
The file was originally used to list all *rules from sandboxes* that had scores
assigned by the GA so that they didn't get
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #169 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-11-23 20:08:06
UTC ---
spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/10_force_active.cf
It seems this file needs to be updated after the rescoring. Should all the
rules in 50_scores.cf be
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #168 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-11-20 15:10:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #167)
locally, I've have lowered the MISSING_HB_SEP score to 0.5
lottsa funky ERP stuff seems to have a talent to FP on it.
its
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #164 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-11-17 03:03:22
UTC ---
It appears that tests here are failing after commit because rules required by
this test were zeroed out. It seems these rules have almost zero hits
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #165 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-11-17 03:18:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #161)
-score RDNS_NONE 0.1
-score RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.1
+# score RDNS_NONE 0 1.1 0 0.7
+# score
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #166 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-11-17 07:41:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #164)
It appears that tests here are failing after commit because rules required
by
this test were zeroed out. It seems these
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
AXB alex.ur...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alex.ur...@gmail.com
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #159 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-11-16 16:27:51 UTC ---
will we go ahead and check in those scores, anyway? that would allow another
beta (soon).
re: HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_* -- it's very common for that kind of
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #160 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-11-16 18:28:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #142)
Seems to me that many / most(?) HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI supposedly
false positives are due to freelotto.com mail. I wonder
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #161 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-11-16 19:27:50
UTC ---
-score RDNS_NONE 0.1
-score RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.1
+# score RDNS_NONE 0 1.1 0 0.7
+# score RDNS_DYNAMIC 0 0.5 0 0.5
These are
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #162 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-11-16 21:28:44
UTC ---
fp-fn-statistics across the entire rescore logs.
Set 3 Before
===
# SUMMARY for threshold 5.0:
# Correctly non-spam: 703647 99.90%
# Correctly
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #163 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-11-16 22:58:57
UTC ---
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/SpamAssassin-trunk/4344/testReport/
-score MISSING_HB_SEP 2.5
+# score MISSING_HB_SEP 2.5
+score MISSING_HB_SEP
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #157 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-11-12 10:07:55
UTC ---
TVD_RCVD_SPACE_BRACKET
MISSING_MIME_HB_SEP
FUZZY_CPILL
X_IP Bug #5920 appears not fixed as claimed.
FRT_SOMA2
CTYPE_001C_B
MIME_BASE64_BLANKS
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #158 from Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com 2009-11-12 16:20:15 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #157)
spamassassin-3.2.5
score HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02 1.518 0.550 0.573 0.383
score HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04 1.561 0.170 0.863 0.172
score
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #154 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-11-11 11:38:13
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #152)
| Please manually adjust the scores of RCVD_IN_PSBL up. At the time of the
| rescore masscheck PSBL had not yet
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #4564|0 |1
is
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #152 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-11-08 16:36:24
UTC ---
A new run, this time I left the URIBL whitelists and similar fixed
(at their relatively high manual scores) as they were in current
50_scores.cf
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #150 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-11-07 13:33:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #146)
Created an attachment (id=4565)
-- (https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4565) [details]
resulting
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #151 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-11-07 15:46:54
UTC ---
Please manually adjust the scores of RCVD_IN_PSBL up. At the time of the
rescore masscheck PSBL had not yet whitelisted hotmail, yahoo, gmail and a
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #4561|0 |1
is
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #144 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-10-29 18:33:38
UTC ---
What is the next step in order to move forward?
--
Configure bugmail:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #141 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-28 09:02:40
UTC ---
But I agree that more may need re-fixing.
cool.
In particular, some of the DNSBLs and most of the DNSWLs are good to 'lock
down', I feel, as
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #142 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-28 10:23:19
UTC ---
Seems to me that many / most(?) HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI supposedly
false positives are due to freelotto.com mail. I wonder whether such
samples are
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #143 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-28 10:41:31
UTC ---
Seems to me that many / most(?) HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI supposedly
false positives are due to freelotto.com mail.
Same applies to RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #136 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-10-27 07:09:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #133)
it looks like there might be a bit of a problem there -- definitely some rules
that are in immutable sections, like the above,
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #137 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-27 14:18:14
UTC ---
it looks like there might be a bit of a problem there -- definitely some
rules that are in immutable sections, like the above, have been allowed
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #138 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-27 14:29:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #134)
Some of the spam in my corpora is from third parties. I do check it for
correct
classification before uploading, but I
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #139 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-10-27 15:00:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #137)
Sort-of deliberately. Initially I followed the idea in wiki RescoreMassCheck
section 4.2: 'comment out all score lines except for
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #140 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-10-27 15:04:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #138)
I believe the masschecks leaves internal/external/msa_networks to their
defaults, unless one cares to configure it correctly for
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #4542|0 |1
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #125 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-26 08:00:59
UTC ---
$ head test scores
=
score set 3 (net, bayes) - gen-set3-20-5.0-12200-ga
test (10%)
# SUMMARY for threshold 5.0:
#
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #127 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-26 08:09:26
UTC ---
Created an attachment (id=4560)
-- (https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4560)
ranges.data on corpora used for score set 3 and 2
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #128 from Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de 2009-10-26
09:57:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #124)
Created an attachment (id=4558)
-- (https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4558) [details]
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #129 from Matthias Leisi matth...@leisi.net 2009-10-26 10:36:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #124)
The RCVD_IN_DNSWL_* scores are hand-tweaked (according to Comment 101),
otherwise the _MED stands out above the _HI due to
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #130 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-26 11:03:28
UTC ---
The RCVD_IN_DNSWL_* scores are hand-tweaked (according to Comment 101),
otherwise the _MED stands out above the _HI due to its significantly higher
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #133 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-10-26 13:51:54 UTC ---
strange, some of the more trustworthy BLs are very low scoring.
RCVD_IN_XBL: 0.404 and 0.722
these have been effectively zeroed, although are supposed to be
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #134 from John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org 2009-10-26 14:31:20 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #132)
$ grep RCVD_IN_DNSWL_ freqs.full
OVERALLSPAM% HAM% S/ORANK SCORE NAME
0.184 0.0005 0.57080.001
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #135 from Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com 2009-10-26 16:27:56 UTC
---
Created an attachment (id=4561)
-- (https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4561)
Checker for rules that match more ham than spam
I've
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 06:34:47PM -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
On October 20, 2009, bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org wrote:
Getting back to this issue: I don't see any problem with prejudice against
poorly constructed network infrastructures that can't bother to adhere to
the
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 23:35 -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
On 10/21/2009 10:46 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
s/ Warren /SA devs, contributors and mass-check contributors/x
# There is something seriously disturbing with the above comment.
# Fix using a trivial substitution.
What's
On October 21, 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
SA is ALL about scores, and NOT absolute.
If you want absolute, reject BEFORE even passing the mail to SA. Easy.
Lots of cycles spared. But since you're a regular on the user's list, I
assume you've read that before...
hehe.. no, not on the
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:34:13 -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
I am curious to the large HAM rate.. Again, I think the testing of
this rule
against a corpus might be affecting this..
I tend to agree. AOL announced wholesale blocking of anyone with
NXDOMAIN rDNS a few years back now, and
Henrik Krohns wrote:
I only have to look at my mail logs from today, and I see dozen of legimate
RDNS_NONE hits originating from real people. I'm happy to greylist it at
MTA, but not block directly.
As said, it's a site policy. Some people use high FP BLs also happily. Many
people might not
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 20:35, Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com wrote:
Henrik Krohns wrote:
I only have to look at my mail logs from today, and I see dozen of legimate
RDNS_NONE hits originating from real people. I'm happy to greylist it at
MTA, but not block directly.
As said, it's a site
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #122 from Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com 2009-10-22 13:32:40 UTC
---
Some bugs in the auto-generated rules from attachment 4553
HTML_MESSAGE scores WAY too high. There are others too.
Full list as of right now:
MSECS
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #123 from Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com 2009-10-22 13:47:40 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #122)
sorry, that should be:
elinks -dump http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/ |perl -ne
'print if
On October 20, 2009, bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org wrote:
Getting back to this issue: I don't see any problem with prejudice against
poorly constructed network infrastructures that can't bother to adhere to
the SMTP standard (RFC1912 section 2.1). This is something that any
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 18:34 -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
MagicMail Servers have been blocking all email at the connection level that
do
not have rDNS now for the past couple of years, except when SMTP AUTH is
presented, and we haven't had an F/P reported in over a year.
Funnily enough,
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 22:03 -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
On 10/21/2009 09:34 PM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
Warren, have you done any 'testing' with the SPAM-RATS RBL's against the
corpus? would be interested in numbers.. even with the variables of aged
dating, and not checking SMTP Authed
On 10/21/2009 10:46 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
s/ Warren /SA devs, contributors and mass-check contributors/x
# There is something seriously disturbing with the above comment.
# Fix using a trivial substitution.
This is not about Warren. He just happens to dump random BLs for a short
time
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #110 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-10-20 03:46:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #109)
(In reply to comment #108)
The important questions are, where is KB_RATWARE_BOUNDARY, which was
specifically pushed right
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #111 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-10-20 03:48:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #110)
(In reply to comment #109)
(In reply to comment #108)
The important questions are, where is KB_RATWARE_BOUNDARY, which was
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #112 from Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de 2009-10-20
04:15:03 UTC ---
anyway it doesn't look like that rules is good enough to supersede them:
that's a much higher FP rate!
Yes. It's all Warren's fault! ;)
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #113 from Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de 2009-10-20
04:43:31 UTC ---
9.836 12.8985 0.00031.000 0.981.00 KB_RATWARE_OUTLOOK_MID
Proposing the MID variant for inclusion, and dropping the other
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #114 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-10-20 08:26:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #113)
9.836 12.8985 0.00031.000 0.981.00 KB_RATWARE_OUTLOOK_MID
Proposing the MID variant for inclusion, and
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #115 from Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de 2009-10-20
08:46:55 UTC ---
Err, sure. :) The following variations should just be dropped.
score KB_RATWARE_OUTLOOK_08 0
score KB_RATWARE_OUTLOOK_12 0
score
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #117 from Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de 2009-10-20
13:17:26 UTC ---
bb_trec_enron has 98.9497% of its ham match RDNS_NONE, which is to say that
it's bogus.
Indeed. From the dev list earlier today, that's a
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #119 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-10-20 13:47:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #118)
... despite the current corpus data (unless 1.7% is a high ham hit-rate)?
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #118 from Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com 2009-10-20 13:38:04 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #117)
bb_trec_enron has 98.9497% of its ham match RDNS_NONE, which is to say
that it's bogus.
Indeed. From the dev list earlier
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #120 from Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com 2009-10-20 16:25:36 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #119)
(In reply to comment #118)
... despite the current corpus data (unless 1.7% is a high ham hit-rate)?
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #121 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-10-20 19:00:36
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #120)
I agree that RCVD_VIA_APNIC is a prejudiced rule, and my channels have had it
rated 0.001 ever since you called me out on it
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #101 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-10-19 07:53:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #98)
The RCVD_IN_DNSWL_* scores are again unusual:
score RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 0 -0.466 0 -0.001
score RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 0 -0.292 0
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #102 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-10-19 07:55:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #99)
I just discovered that I was falsely triggering rules like RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,
RCVD_IN_PBL or RDNS_DYNAMIC on some of my corpus
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #103 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-10-19 10:31:26
UTC ---
if you want, feel free to sed the log files to fix this, or just remove the
lines entirely, and reupload. 170 FPs for those DUL rules is quite strong
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #104 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-19 11:28:49
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #103)
Removed the majority of the offending lines and reuploaded
ham-rescore-wt*.log.
I also zeroed out *wt-en6.log because
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #105 from Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de 2009-10-19
12:21:56 UTC ---
Argh, late to the show, sorry. :-/ From the second GA re-score run, attachment
4553 (aligned for readability):
score KB_RATWARE_MSGID
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #106 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-10-19 12:35:30
UTC ---
Thanks. Seems you did it in the 'corpus' rsync directory. Please also update
them in the 'submit' directory using existing names, otherwise in few
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #107 from Justin Mason j...@jmason.org 2009-10-19 14:26:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #105)
score KB_RATWARE_OUTLOOK_08 1.100 3.232 0.776 0.025
score KB_RATWARE_OUTLOOK_12 2.734 2.826 1.654 0.041
score
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #108 from Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de 2009-10-19
14:49:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #107)
it looks like they overlap a lot with some other rules. But yes, if they were
just 1 rule, it probably would have
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #109 from Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de 2009-10-19
15:37:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #108)
The important questions are, where is KB_RATWARE_BOUNDARY, which was
specifically pushed right before the deadline
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #100 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-15 11:56:23
UTC ---
Btw, I added a Target Milestone 3.3.1, so that a triage on 3.3.0 bugs
may be more selective, choosing between Future/Undefined/3.3.1
--
Configure
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #4550|0 |1
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #97 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-14 16:29:29
UTC ---
gen-set0-5-5.0-1-ga
test (10%)
# SUMMARY for threshold 5.0:
# Correctly non-spam: 35461 98.50%
# Correctly spam: 38357 81.35%
# False
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #98 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-14 16:48:26
UTC ---
The RCVD_IN_DNSWL_* scores are again unusual:
score RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 0 -0.466 0 -0.001
score RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 0 -0.292 0 -0.760
score
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #99 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-10-14 21:58:58 UTC
---
I just discovered that I was falsely triggering rules like RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,
RCVD_IN_PBL or RDNS_DYNAMIC on some of my corpus ham due to a
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #93 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-10-11 00:01:01 UTC
---
Bad news. Please remove the binnocenti logs from the rescore masschecks.
Working with him we discovered 50+ additional spam in his ham folders and there
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
Matthias Leisi matth...@leisi.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #95 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-10-11 07:03:21 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #94)
The DNSWL stats posted by Warren to the users list seem to indicate that this
should be the correct ordering (at least based
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #88 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-09 06:23:06
PDT ---
The release notes could then say that one should lower the DKIM_ADSP_*
scores on installations where it is known that mail is not reaching
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #89 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-09 06:38:09
PDT ---
Created an attachment (id=4550)
-- (https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4550)
resulting 50_scores.cf from garescorer runs
Ok,
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #90 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-09 06:49:27
PDT ---
To assess the quality and repeatability of results, here are the summaries
on all four score sets, each pair consists of a normal run on 90% of
entries,
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #92 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-10-09 20:22:24 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #89)
Created an attachment (id=4550)
-- (https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4550) [details]
resulting
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #83 from Henrik Krohns h...@hege.li 2009-10-08 01:02:43 PDT ---
Cleaned up my DKIM_ADSP_DISCARD hits (old 2005 ebay mails removed) and some
other old stuff, logs sent..
--
Configure bugmail:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #84 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-08 06:50:37
PDT ---
These are all legitimate looking paypal mail delivered to a Yahoo account from
mid-2008 through recently.
Thanks Warren for your out-of-band mail.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #85 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-10-08 10:15:55 PDT
---
I guess we have no choice but to drop wt-en6 from the rescore GA.
Should I drop it from nightly masscheck as well?
--
Configure bugmail:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #86 from Mark Martinec mark.marti...@ijs.si 2009-10-08 10:37:23
PDT ---
I guess we have no choice but to drop wt-en6 from the rescore GA.
Should I drop it from nightly masscheck as well?
I can imagine such problem could
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #87 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-10-08 13:51:31 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #86)
The release notes could then say that one should lower the DKIM_ADSP_*
scores on installations where it is known that mail is
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
