When spam gets through to my inbox, it almost always would have been
marked spam, and then I see BAYES_00. By my count, without the BAYES_00
flag, SA would have blocked the message. Should I turn BAYESIAN filters
off, or am I doing something wrong? I cannot imagine why anyone would
turn
Hi!
Attached is a diff for rules_du_jour.
I prefer to manually update my mail rules and push them out to my
servers, vs use cron on each. Since rules_du_jour is only one component
of my mail setup, I typically execute a script that updates it in
addition to other things. Unfortunately that
Per the advice of Loren, I have started my bayes db over. And so far so
good. SA is working like I wanted it to. I have another question about
my learnspam script. Here is the script:
START SCRIPT
#!/bin/sh
# learnspam v0.34
On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 07:47:35PM +, Jeff Ramsey wrote:
ssh $SERVER
echo ; echo 'Learning ham...' ; echo ;
sa-learn --ham --showdots --mbox $TMPHDIR ;
Ok
echo 'Unlearning bad ham...' ; echo ;
sa-learn --ham --forget --showdots --mbox $TMPSDIR ;
Ok,
On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 04:17, Michael Parker wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 07:47:35PM +, Jeff Ramsey wrote:
ssh $SERVER
echo ; echo 'Learning ham...' ; echo ;
sa-learn --ham --showdots --mbox $TMPHDIR ;
Ok
echo 'Unlearning bad ham...' ; echo ;
On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 08:26:35PM +, Jeff Ramsey wrote:
You realize that AWL also serves as a blacklist right? I guess you
could remove it all, but I wouldn't recommend it. Granted, it is
possible that if you're talking about mail that passed as ham, then
the address might have a
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 04:48 am, Rakesh wrote:
Well even i think that has to be the final resort, but one thing wanted
to know. How much of similar kind of mails are you guys recieving ? Is
it just the begining or are we already in the middle of it.
Rakesh
Beginning and Middle imply
Jeff Ramsey wrote:
Per the advice of Loren, I have started my bayes db over. And so far so
good. SA is working like I wanted it to. I have another question about
my learnspam script. Here is the script:
START SCRIPT
#!/bin/sh
# learnspam v0.34
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Mittwoch, 22. Dezember 2004 20:47 schrieb Jeff Ramsey:
Per the advice of Loren, I have started my bayes db over. And so far so
good. SA is working like I wanted it to. I have another question about
my learnspam script. Here is the script:
[..]
I upgraded this morning, from sources. Build was all OK so |I
installed, and restarted spamd. Since then I have had a number of
cases of spamd just stopping, and log messages like (I call from exim)
2004-12-23 11:46:04 1ChRPw-0001BG-P3 spam acl condition: warning - spamd
connection to
I don't see any place on the website that discuss how to unsubscribe to this
list. Does any one have suggestions?
Thanks,
Brett
Hello:
I am running SpamAssassin 3.0.1 and have been having a problem. When I run
sa-learn -D --dump magic I get the following output.
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 1084 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0
Brett Romero wrote:
I don't see any place on the website that discuss how to unsubscribe to
this list. Does any one have suggestions?
Hi,
From the headers
list-unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
Rick
Check to make sure that you don't have a phantom local.cf somewhere that's pointing SA
to the wrong directory for bayes. For instance, see if you have both a
/etc/spamassassin and /etc/mail/spamassassin folder.
Make sure it's not putting a new bayes database in your user/.spamassassin
Greetings,
I did some googling and archive searching but didn't come up with a lot
and so I have a question on generating my own scores with
mass-check. I ran mass-check on a very small test corpus (437 spam, 99
ham) by untarring Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.1.tar.gz doing the following:
1) cd to
At 10:56 AM 12/23/2004, John wrote:
This is surely better performance but I would
have thought that the new false negative total would be close to zero
since these rules were generated on the same spam corpus that I used to
test. I ran the tests with no remote tests and no bayes to as these new
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Matt Kettler wrote:
At 10:56 AM 12/23/2004, John wrote:
This is surely better performance but I would
have thought that the new false negative total would be close to zero
since these rules were generated on the same spam corpus that I used to
test. I ran the tests
At 12:06 PM 12/23/2004, John wrote:
Matt,
I appreciate this info! Is there a place where I can go to find more about
how this all works?
Not that I'm aware of. There's some bits of information in the wiki, but
there's no one general source of information...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Matt Kettler wrote:
At 12:06 PM 12/23/2004, John wrote:
Matt,
I appreciate this info! Is there a place where I can go to find more about
how this all works?
Not that I'm aware of. There's some bits of information in the wiki, but
there's no one general source of
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, John wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Matt Kettler wrote:
At 12:06 PM 12/23/2004, John wrote:
Matt,
I appreciate this info! Is there a place where I can go to find more about
how this all works?
Not that I'm aware of. There's some bits of information in the
20 matches
Mail list logo
