IMHO that is a bug
with "bayes_auto_learn 0" there is no reason to lock the bayes database
and the spamd-service should be happy with "ReadOnlyDirectories=/var/lib"
training and sa-update is done on a shell independent of network aware
services
Jan 27 02:52:58 testserver spamd[2794]: bayes:
Am 26.01.2015 um 17:17 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On 26. jan. 2015 16.57.09 John Hardin wrote:
OK, but: why does Bayes saying "it looks as hammy as it looks spammy"
score so much when network tests are disabled?
dnswl is disabled, or missing training of ham, skip rbl check does not
only disabl
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 26. jan. 2015 17.25.06 John Hardin wrote:
I don't quite understand what you're saying, can you unpack that a bit?
i have forgot now what the quesstion is and i belive you know what happends
if using skip rbl check is 1
I know why that scores
On 26. jan. 2015 17.25.06 John Hardin wrote:
I don't quite understand what you're saying, can you unpack that a bit?
i have forgot now what the quesstion is and i belive you know what happends
if using skip rbl check is 1
On 01/26/2015 04:56 PM, John Hardin wrote:
OK, but: why does Bayes saying "it looks as hammy as it looks spammy"
score so much when network tests are disabled?
Highly un-scientific explanation:
Probably because history/experience/gut feeling/etc decided, in absence
of network tests, that it c
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 26. jan. 2015 16.57.09 John Hardin wrote:
OK, but: why does Bayes saying "it looks as hammy as it looks spammy"
score so much when network tests are disabled?
dnswl is disabled, or missing training of ham, skip rbl check does not only
disable
On 26. jan. 2015 16.57.09 John Hardin wrote:
OK, but: why does Bayes saying "it looks as hammy as it looks spammy"
score so much when network tests are disabled?
dnswl is disabled, or missing training of ham, skip rbl check does not only
disable blacklists
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Jan 23, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Wolf Drechsel
wrote:
> 2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Spamwahrscheinlichkeit nach Bayes-Test:
> 40-60%
On 25.01.15 11:13, LuKreme wrote:
This is incorrect.
Bayes_50 should be scored at about 0.5, or lower.
On 01/26/2015 12:11 PM, Axb wrote:
On 01/26/2015 12:05 PM, Wolf Drechsel wrote:
Am Montag, 26. Januar 2015, 11:23:59 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 26.01.2015 um 10:55 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-26 09:41:
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
that would indicate nw
On 01/26/2015 12:05 PM, Wolf Drechsel wrote:
Am Montag, 26. Januar 2015, 11:23:59 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 26.01.2015 um 10:55 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-26 09:41:
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
that would indicate nwtwork rules are not used there (too
Am Montag, 26. Januar 2015, 11:23:59 schrieb Reindl Harald:
> Am 26.01.2015 um 10:55 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
> > Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-26 09:41:
> >> score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
> >> that would indicate nwtwork rules are not used there (too bad)...
> >
> > why is it bad of
Am 26.01.2015 um 10:55 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-26 09:41:
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
that would indicate nwtwork rules are not used there (too bad)...
why is it bad of missing train of ham ? :-)
WTF - it's bad if network tests are disabled - in
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-26 09:41:
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
that would indicate nwtwork rules are not used there (too bad)...
why is it bad of missing train of ham ? :-)
On Jan 23, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Wolf Drechsel wrote:
2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Spamwahrscheinlichkeit nach Bayes-Test: 40-60%
On 25.01.15 11:13, LuKreme wrote:
This is incorrect.
Bayes_50 should be scored at about 0.5, or lower.
score BAYES_50 0 0 2.00.8
that would indicate nwt
14 matches
Mail list logo
