On 19/04/2012 10:28, Stevan Bajić wrote:
> Sorry. My bad. It's late over here and I forgot about global
> classification groups. So your group definition is okay. It's properly
> configured for a global classification group.
That is alright. Thank you for replying and sharing your knowledge.
So
On 19/04/2012 10:06, Stevan Bajić wrote:
.
>> I too have the same list. Should I use this feature
> You can use the list. Why not?
Cool.
>>or is there an
>> updated list that I can use?
> IgnoreHeader acceptlanguage
> IgnoreHeader Accept-Language
> IgnoreHeader Approved
> IgnoreHeader Archive
On 19.04.2012 04:06, Stevan Bajić wrote:
> On 19.04.2012 03:32, P.V.Anthony wrote:
>> On 19/04/2012 04:41, Stevan Bajić wrote:
>>
IgnoreHeader X-Paranoid-Spam
IgnoreHeader X-Paranoid-Prob
IgnoreHeader X-Paranoid-Report
IgnoreHeader X-ArGoMail-Read
>>> Ohhh boy! From where is tha
On 19.04.2012 03:32, P.V.Anthony wrote:
> On 19/04/2012 04:41, Stevan Bajić wrote:
>
>>> IgnoreHeader X-Paranoid-Spam
>>> IgnoreHeader X-Paranoid-Prob
>>> IgnoreHeader X-Paranoid-Report
>>> IgnoreHeader X-ArGoMail-Read
>> Ohhh boy! From where is that list? Looks like one of my older
>> IgnoreHeader
On 19/04/2012 04:41, Stevan Bajić wrote:
>> IgnoreHeader X-Paranoid-Spam
>> IgnoreHeader X-Paranoid-Prob
>> IgnoreHeader X-Paranoid-Report
>> IgnoreHeader X-ArGoMail-Read
>
> Ohhh boy! From where is that list? Looks like one of my older
> IgnoreHeader list.
I too have the same list. Should I use
On 19.04.2012 00:54, Steve Fatula wrote:
*From:* Stevan Bajić
*To:* dspam-user@lists.sourceforge.net
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2012 3:41 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Dspam-user] Increase Spam Hit Rate
This is not good. But the above data is not that horrible.
Anyway... allow m
On 18.04.2012 23:40, Ben wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation Stevan.
>
> Now that is appears it is worth switching, my next question is how best
> to do the switch for already existing users trained again TEFT:
>
> If I just change the dspam setting, what happens?
Allow me to explain with more deta
From: Stevan Bajić
>To: dspam-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 3:41 PM
>Subject: Re: [Dspam-user] Increase Spam Hit Rate
>
>
>This is not good. But the above data is not that horrible. Anyway... allow me
>to ask you a bunch of questions:
>1) When you get a FN or a FP
Thanks for the explanation Stevan.
Now that is appears it is worth switching, my next question is how best
to do the switch for already existing users trained again TEFT:
If I just change the dspam setting, what happens? Does it start over
with no training data? Convert the old data? Do some hy
On 18.04.2012 22:37, Ben Luey wrote:
> I setup dspam a while ago with TEFT. Everything I've read on the list
> says to use TOE instead of TEFT. Once the training period is over
> (>2,500 messages I believe) does it matter?
Yes it does!
> Does TOE vs TEFT only affect
> the spam detection when in
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 08:55:11PM +0100, Paul Cockings wrote:
> On 18/04/2012 20:45, Steve Fatula wrote:
> >
> >
> >On my setup DSPAM is disabled for most users as they don't need
> >it, the checks that are in place at the MTA are sufficient enough
> >for those users to receive a very
On 18.04.2012 22:38, Steve Fatula wrote:
*From:* Bradley Giesbrecht
*To:* Steve Fatula
*Cc:* Dspam List
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2012 3:04 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Dspam-user] Increase Spam Hit Rate
I can't help you other then to point out that you may have missed
t
I setup dspam a while ago with TEFT. Everything I've read on the list
says to use TOE instead of TEFT. Once the training period is over
(>2,500 messages I believe) does it matter? Does TOE vs TEFT only affect
the spam detection when in training mode?
Put another way, if none of my users are sti
On 18.04.2012 22:04, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Steve Fatula wrote:
>
>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Paul Cockings wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/04/2012 00:07, Steve Fatula wrote:
Have 10 users on this system, highest spam hit rate is 37%, which is
quite bad if you
From: Bradley Giesbrecht
>To: Steve Fatula
>Cc: Dspam List
>Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 3:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [Dspam-user] Increase Spam Hit Rate
>
>
>I can't help you other then to point out that you may have missed the two
>replies prior to the one you responded to, both of which sugge
On Apr 18, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Steve Fatula wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Paul Cockings wrote:
>
>> On 18/04/2012 00:07, Steve Fatula wrote:
>>> Have 10 users on this system, highest spam hit rate is 37%, which is
>>> quite bad if you ask me.
>>
>> On my setup DSPAM is disabled for mos
On 18/04/2012 20:45, Steve Fatula wrote:
On my setup DSPAM is disabled for most users as they don't need
it, the checks that are in place at the MTA are sufficient enough
for those users to receive a very low level of spam. DSPAM is
used for some troublesome accounts or those t
>On my setup DSPAM is disabled for most users as they don't need it, the checks
>that are in place at the MTA are sufficient enough for those users to receive
>a very low level of spam. DSPAM is used for some troublesome accounts or
>those that want/can handle training a filter.
>
>That's gre
On 18/04/2012 00:07, Steve Fatula wrote:
> Have 10 users on this system, highest spam hit rate is 37%, which is
> quite bad if you ask me.
On my setup DSPAM is disabled for most users as they don't need it, the
checks that are in place at the MTA are sufficient enough for those
users to receive
19 matches
Mail list logo
