gt; Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 11:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Wow, spam with scores as low as 2.1??
>
>
> simply out of interest, may i ask what you define as a 'false negative'.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Tomh
simply out of interest, may i ask what you define as a 'false negative'.
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Tomhave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Matt Kettler; Simon Byrnand
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Wow, spam with scores
> I'd say that with all checks (bayes, rbl's, razor, dcc etc) enabled, that
> 5.0 is pretty good for "straight laced" email acounts, and 7 is reasonable
> for "most people". Any higher than 8 and you start missing a lot of spam.
>
Given the commentary in this thread and the fact that my bayes seems
At 21:36 9/07/03 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
At 10:46 AM 7/10/2003 +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote:
>0.5 (Severe),
Egads,
> 1.5 (High),
Ouch,
> 4.0 (Medium),
Oww.
These three settings are going to give you false positives galore.
4.0 isn't all that bad.. according to STATISTICS.txt 4.0 should g
At 10:46 AM 7/10/2003 +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote:
>0.5 (Severe),
Egads,
> 1.5 (High),
Ouch,
> 4.0 (Medium),
Oww.
These three settings are going to give you false positives galore.
4.0 isn't all that bad.. according to STATISTICS.txt 4.0 should give you
0.44% FP rate in v 2.54, which is a
> These three settings are going to give you false positives galore.
>
> Our default "suggested" setting is 7.0 and customers can't see it
> any lower
> than 5.0
>
Actually, under our system, I tested for over a month with different levels
and, given the underlying scoring system(s), there are very
At 12:28 9/07/03 -0600, Benjamin Tomhave wrote:
I don't know that I'm configured correctly on my system, but our relative
spam sensitivity scores (required hits) that are pre-set for customers are:
0.5 (Severe),
Egads,
1.5 (High),
Ouch,
4.0 (Medium),
Oww.
These three settings are going to g
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:28:49PM -0600, Benjamin Tomhave wrote:
> 0.5 (Severe), 1.5 (High), 4.0 (Medium), 10.0 (Low). The majority of spam I
> see tagged by SA w/ DCC and basic checks enabled (no RBL) tends to fall in
> the 2-7 range. I'm always amazed to hear about scores in the teens and
> t
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 08:19:03PM +0200, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> See my site, http://www.rimblesister.com
Tried this link, but it didn't work - shure there's not a typo?
Now I'll never know what a 'rimblesister' is! ;^}
Regards: Jim Ford
--
Spam poison - don't use! ---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <---
I don't know that I'm configured correctly on my system, but our relative
spam sensitivity scores (required hits) that are pre-set for customers are:
0.5 (Severe), 1.5 (High), 4.0 (Medium), 10.0 (Low). The majority of spam I
see tagged by SA w/ DCC and basic checks enabled (no RBL) tends to fall i
Dragoncrest wrote:
I just saw something weird today. I'm running SA 2.55 and I hit a
spam message that scored as low as 2.1 and I still have yet to figure
out how. It was a blatently obvious spam, but it scored very low. I
know that a number of members talked about this not too long back, bu
11 matches
Mail list logo
