On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Gary Funck wrote:
> As it stands, this recipe only checks that the there is a line whose
> first charcater is not a space or a tab. And if this sort of mesage is
> found, it is deposited in the spam folder. Likely not what was intended.
Oops, you are right. This is probably w
At 04:59 AM 12/1/2003, Korchmenuk Nickolay wrote:
> I want mark e-mails with empty body as spam.
> Ho can I do this?
In .procmailrc:
:0B:
* ! ^[^ ]
spam
That's a caret, a space, and a tab between the square brackets.
---
This SF.ne
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Pedro Sam wrote:
> My messages are in mbox format, so I report/learn spam by:
>
> "formail -s spamassassin -r < SPAM_MBOX"
>
> But when I dump the contents of the bayes database, I found many tokens unique
> to SA headers and markup.
I found some header stuff but no other m
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Gorm Jensen wrote:
> Bayes is working very well for me, but I am concerned about poisoning the
> database with extraneous, obfuscating words that many spam messages contain.
>
> A few postings to this list say that there is no problem, but I don't want
> to spoil a good thing
Has anyone experimented with applying a penalty for small emails? With
bayes or without I always seem to get a mail or two in my inbox. They're
all pretty small, under 1k for the message body. SA finds spammy stuff in
them but it's never enough to go above 5.0. They're anywhere from 3.8 to
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Pedro Sam wrote:
> Can anyone else confirm that "spamassassin -r" fails to remove SA markup when
> it invokes bayes learning?
How are you passing the message to spamassassin -r?
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Bryan Hoover wrote:
> Can anyone please tell me generally how frenquently they're DCC is
> hitting with SA?
DCC is working fine for me. I have three spams out of eight that arrived
in the last 30 minutes that have a DCC match.
--
I've been using SpamAssassin since about May. Recently I started
getting a lot of false positives with SA 2.60. I noticed that all my mail
was getting a bayesian score of 99 to 100%. I'm not exactly sure why it
was happening. My best guess is that since the bayes database only holds
a limited
