> I've generated the following rules combination lists.
>
> The ham list are rule combinations sorted by the number of ham hits that
> have 0 spam hits.
> The spam list are rule combinations sorted by the number of spam hits that
> have 0 ham hits.
You’re sort of reinventing wheels. See
htt
This is the for what it's worth department.
I've generated the following rules combination lists.
The ham list are rule combinations sorted by the number of ham hits
that have 0 spam hits.
The spam list are rule combinations sorted by the number of spam hits
that have 0 ham hits.
There are
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Mar 8, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
how can these two stats be different?
On 08.03.16 10:19, @lbutlr wrote:
Because one is for SPAM and one is for HAM.
On Mar 8, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
Wh
On Mar 8, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
how can these two stats be different?
On 08.03.16 10:19, @lbutlr wrote:
Because one is for SPAM and one is for HAM.
On Mar 8, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Why did you remove the important part?
On 08.03.16 11
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Mar 8, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> how can these two stats be different?
On 08.03.16 10:19, @lbutlr wrote:
Because one is for SPAM and one is for HAM.
TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OF
> On Mar 8, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>> On Mar 8, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> how can these two stats be different?
>
> On 08.03.16 10:19, @lbutlr wrote:
>> Because one is for SPAM and one is for HAM.
>
> Why did you remove the important part?
On 8. mar. 2016 18.42.03 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Why did the same rule hit 38.98% of all mail and 50.51% of all mail?
grep foo ./hamfolder
grep bar ./spamfolder
Why should both folders need same counts of mails ?
On Mar 8, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
how can these two stats be different?
On 08.03.16 10:19, @lbutlr wrote:
Because one is for SPAM and one is for HAM.
Why did you remove the important part?
TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES
On Mar 8, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> how can these two stats be different?
Because one is for SPAM and one is for HAM.
--
No man is free who is not master of himself
Ok, thanks.
Everything is working now. and yes, spamassassin —lint returns nothing.
I had probably just got outputs confused somewhere along the line. The —lint -D
log now also shows no warnings.
thanks
Robert
> On 8 Mar 2016, at 13:27, RW wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 07:05:11 +
> rob..
On 07.03.16 23:39, Charles Sprickman wrote:
TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
2 HTML_MESSAGE12714 8.18 38.98 87.85 90.80
TOP HAM RULES FIRED
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %O
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 07:05:11 +
rob...@chalmers.com.au wrote:
> In the original email I posted, I'm asking two questions.
> 1. I'm getting two warnings about nonexistent rules. Is this fixable?
That's because you created descriptions for rules that don't exist.
Either you did something wrong o
Reindl Harald kirjoitti 7.3.2016 20:12:
Am 07.03.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
Thanks to this header my server automatically filtered your email into
my scanned spam folder.
Seems appropriate enough.
:)
fix your rule to have a "starts with" instead a "contains" :-)
Better yet, make
Can I ask, how are you getting these stats please?
Thanks
> On 8 Mar 2016, at 05:11, David B Funk wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>
>> I’ve been running with some daily training for a little over a week and I’m
>> seeing less spam in my inbox. I’ve seen a few things sl
14 matches
Mail list logo
