Re: Interesting rule combo results

2016-03-09 Thread RW
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 22:25:09 -0800 Marc Perkel wrote: > 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 s

Re: Interesting rule combo results

2016-03-09 Thread Marc Perkel
On 03/09/16 06:45, RW wrote: On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 22:25:09 -0800 Marc Perkel wrote: 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 r

Re: Interesting rule combo results

2016-03-09 Thread Dave Funk
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016, Marc Perkel wrote: 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 spa

Re: Interesting rule combo results

2016-03-09 Thread Marc Perkel
On 03/09/16 07:33, Dave Funk wrote: On Tue, 8 Mar 2016, Marc Perkel wrote: 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 co

How to you add GEO -IP restrictions to local.cf

2016-03-09 Thread Peter Wilcox
How to you add GEO -IP restrictions to local.cf

Re: How to you add GEO -IP restrictions to local.cf

2016-03-09 Thread RW
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 11:12:23 -0600 (CST) Peter Wilcox wrote: > How to you add GEO -IP restrictions to local.cf See: https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/RelayCountryPlugin

Re: Interesting rule combo results

2016-03-09 Thread Ian Zimmerman
On 2016-03-09 07:12 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote: > >>HAM RULES: > >>... > >> 80056 HTML_MESSAGE > > > >What's happening here? This seems to imply that HTML_MESSAGE only > >appears in ham. > > > > > > I think my results are a little strange in that I might not be > training off all the data bu