On 2014-04-07 19:23, Thomas Harold wrote:
NOTE: New masscheck contributors are now being accepted since about 2012-08-09.
Is that supposed to say "now being" or "not being"?
I'm assuming "now being" since there are regular mentions of a need for
ham corpus. But that's just a hopeful guess, gi
On 4/5/2014 12:14 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2014, Amir Reza Rahbaran wrote:
>
>> I want to know how long it takes custom signatures updated by sa-update.
>
> Daily, if the corpora are sufficient for masscheck scoring to run.
>
> At the moment the masscheck corpus is ham-starved. The
On 4/6/2014 11:25 PM, jdebert wrote:
>
> This explains why SA is not catching any spam here? After updating
> to updates 1584283 and then 1585021, all spam is being passed. Nothing
> else was done. No other changes made.
>
Our setup is still catching spam, but the performance has definitely
tren
On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, Helmut Schneider wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014, Helmut Schneider wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014, Helmut Schneider wrote:
over the last weeks I constantly run into issues when I cannot
get SA up again because of "broken" rule sets. Today it
John Hardin wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014, Helmut Schneider wrote:
>
> > John Hardin wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 6 Apr 2014, Helmut Schneider wrote:
> > >
> > > > over the last weeks I constantly run into issues when I cannot
> > > > get SA up again because of "broken" rule sets. Today it's
> > > >
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014, jdebert wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 09:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014, Amir Reza Rahbaran wrote:
I want to know how long it takes custom signatures updated by
sa-update.
Daily, if the corpora are sufficient for masscheck scoring to run.
At the m
On 2014-04-06 20:25, jdebert wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 09:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014, Amir Reza Rahbaran wrote:
I want to know how long it takes custom signatures updated by
sa-update.
Daily, if the corpora are sufficient for masscheck scoring to run.
At the mo
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 09:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2014, Amir Reza Rahbaran wrote:
>
> > I want to know how long it takes custom signatures updated by
> > sa-update.
>
> Daily, if the corpora are sufficient for masscheck scoring to run.
>
> At the moment the masscheck c
On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, Dave Warren wrote:
On 2014-04-06 17:21, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014, Dave Warren wrote:
> Is older ham useful? It specifically mentions that older spam isn't
> useful, and why, but I'm thinking older ham is probably useful since old
> mail clients and legiti
On Monday 07 April 2014 08:00:38 Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Please move this patch to a bug for SA. Add more comments and some
> documentation for the feature and I don't see why we couldn't patch for
> you. However, also realize that I'm looking heavily at things like
> TxRep to replace AWL which
On 4/7/2014 5:08 AM, Nuno Fernandes wrote:
Nevertheless i think the following one liner would do the trick (have to
test it though):
--- Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AWL.pm.orig2014-03-24
11:31:18.0 +
+++ Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AWL.pm 2014-03-24 11:31:20.0 +
@@
On 4/7/2014 3:17 AM, Dave Warren wrote:
On 2014-04-06 17:21, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014, Dave Warren wrote:
Is older ham useful? It specifically mentions that older spam isn't
useful, and why, but I'm thinking older ham is probably useful since
old mail clients and legitimately sen
> Nevertheless i think the following one liner would do the trick (have to
> test it though):
>
> --- Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AWL.pm.orig2014-03-24
> 11:31:18.0 +
> +++ Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AWL.pm 2014-03-24 11:31:20.0 +
> @@ -437,6 +437,7 @@
># or
On 2014-04-06 17:21, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014, Dave Warren wrote:
Is older ham useful? It specifically mentions that older spam isn't
useful, and why, but I'm thinking older ham is probably useful since
old mail clients and legitimately sent mail never dies. But I could
filter ba
14 matches
Mail list logo
