At Fri, 7 May 2004 11:04:55 +1000, Mary Gardiner wrote:
I train it on all my spam and non-spam, and I train it every week on
mail received during that week. (With a cronjob, I just need to make
sure false negatives and positives are moved into an appropriate
folder.) I don't delete the
On Sat, May 08, 2004, Angus Lees wrote:
.. so with all that manual spam/ham classification/archiving, is there
actually any point running an automatic spam filter anymore?
Well, depends on what you mean by all that. About three times a week,
a mail ends up in the wrong folder. (That's an error
This one time, at band camp, Angus Lees wrote:
At Fri, 7 May 2004 11:04:55 +1000, Mary Gardiner wrote:
I train it on all my spam and non-spam, and I train it every week on
mail received during that week. (With a cronjob, I just need to make
sure false negatives and positives are moved into an
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 11:52:30AM +1000, James Gregory wrote:
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 23:36 +1000, Nicholas Tomlin wrote:
How can we get a spam filter to check for misspelt words and reject the mail
on that basis?
I thought about this a while ago. It would be relatively easy to
implement
On Fri, May 07, 2004, James Gregory wrote:
2. For any significant misspellings of words, bogofilter will already
look for them.
The Language Log says there are 1,300,925,111,156,286,160,896 possible
creative mispellings of Viagra alone.
Hell sluggers,
I´ve noticed the amount of mail bypassing the filters seems to be increasing
and would like to venture an idea...
Most of the mails that get through are misspelt to put the filter off the
track.
eg,
Some that got through:
{
Ur Diicky Is So Smaall horsemeat digenesis
Darlin how
Since changing to bogofilter (plus stringent training), my spam filtering
is near on perfect. I've had one only slip through this week. I've written
a crude script to make training easier.
You didn't tell us which spam filter, but spamassassin was catching less
than 50% spams when I stopped
David wrote:
...snip..
You didn't tell us which spam filter, but spamassassin was catching less
than 50% spams when I stopped using it.
Is it worthwhile to retrain your spam filters when the nature of spam
changes?
Just wondering.
--
Terry Collins {:-)}}} email: terryc at woa.com.au
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 09:43:06AM +1000, Terry Collins wrote:
Is it worthwhile to retrain your spam filters when the nature of spam
changes?
Yes. A month or so ago spamassassin's success rate suddenly
plummeted. After retraining, it's back to normal -- missing only one
or two or the
On Fri, May 07, 2004, David wrote:
You didn't tell us which spam filter, but spamassassin was catching less
than 50% spams when I stopped using it.
SpamAssassin has Bayesian filtering too these days. People who are
already using it should probably try its sa-learn utility before
jumping spam
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 23:36 +1000, Nicholas Tomlin wrote:
Hell sluggers,
I´ve noticed the amount of mail bypassing the filters seems to be increasing
and would like to venture an idea...
Most of the mails that get through are misspelt to put the filter off the
track.
eg,
Some that
quote who=James Gregory
How can we get a spam filter to check for misspelt words and reject the
mail on that basis?
I thought about this a while ago. It would be relatively easy to implement
-- just hook aspell into a procmail rule. I eventually came to two
conclusions:
1. I would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Waugh wrote:
| quote who=James Gregory
|
|How can we get a spam filter to check for misspelt words and reject the
|mail on that basis?
|
|I thought about this a while ago. It would be relatively easy to implement
|-- just hook aspell into a
quote who=Dean Hamstead
but restricting spam based on english spelling would be terrible
There are lots of spelling modules and dictionaries out there - who said
anything about English? Spelling fascists come in EVERY LANGUAGE (that you
can write, at least).
- Jeff
--
GVADEC 2004:
14 matches
Mail list logo
