(2) where would I go to look at building a plugin for this? Ideally
something that ends up upstream, but though I can write code, I know no
perl :).
Well, from the few I've seen, they all seem to have a relatively constant
structure. Someone pointed you to a plugin that is at least dealing in
On 9/21/21 18:01, Loren Wilton wrote:
None of these seem to accomplish disabling learning for a specific rule
I think the problem is that I believe Bayes works off of the total score, and probably only sees
rule names as more tokens, if it sees them at all. If it indeed works off the total
None of these seem to accomplish disabling learning for a specific rule
I think the problem is that I believe Bayes works off of the total score,
and probably only sees rule names as more tokens, if it sees them at all. If
it indeed works off the total score, about all you can do is somehow tw
Grant Taylor writes:
> On 9/21/21 2:00 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> You are missing that SA is not a standards conformance test suite. It
>> is a tool to guess if a message is spam. Bill said that some forms of
>> Message-ID are correlated with spamminess. So whether the form that is
>> correl
On 9/21/21 2:00 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
You are missing that SA is not a standards conformance test suite. It
is a tool to guess if a message is spam. Bill said that some forms of
Message-ID are correlated with spamminess. So whether the form that is
correlated is compliant to the spec or not
On 9/21/21 15:53, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2021-09-21 22:11, Matt Corallo wrote:
"tflags MAILING_LIST_MULTI noautolearn" doesn't seem like quite what I
want, it just reduces the score used to decide whether to learn.
There's some old bugzilla mentions asking for this feature, but it
seems the r
On 2021-09-21 22:11, Matt Corallo wrote:
"tflags MAILING_LIST_MULTI noautolearn" doesn't seem like quite what I
want, it just reduces the score used to decide whether to learn.
There's some old bugzilla mentions asking for this feature, but it
seems the response was "write a plugin". Is there a
Hi!
I recently noticed my bayes was rarely matching any spam, and it turns out this was due to
autolearn=ham'ing occurring on lots of list traffic that I only occasionally read, some of which was
blatant spam. Sadly, list traffic can be pretty hard to categorize and ends up getting through due
Grant Taylor writes:
> What am I missing?
You are missing that SA is not a standards conformance test suite. It
is a tool to guess if a message is spam. Bill said that some forms of
Message-ID are correlated with spamminess. So whether the form that is
correlated is compliant to the spec o
On 9/21/21 11:03 AM, Bill Cole wrote:
Empirical evidence. The use of a non-public address in a Message-ID
correlates to a message being spam. In my experience, so does using an
IP literal of any sort in a Message-ID, but that may be an idiosyncrasy
in my mail.
Fair enough. To each their own.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021, Bill Cole wrote:
On 2021-09-21 at 12:25:30 UTC-0400 (Tue, 21 Sep 2021 10:25:30 -0600)
Grant Taylor
is rumored to have said:
But why the penalty for using non-public addresses* in a Message-ID: string?
Empirical evidence. The use of a non-public address in a Message-ID c
On 2021-09-21 at 12:25:30 UTC-0400 (Tue, 21 Sep 2021 10:25:30 -0600)
Grant Taylor
is rumored to have said:
> But why the penalty for using non-public addresses* in a Message-ID: string?
Empirical evidence. The use of a non-public address in a Message-ID correlates
to a message being spam. In my
On 9/21/21 7:09 AM, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
An unknown MUA (user agent header removed by sender) writes its
Message-IDs as .
Ew.
Is the header syntactically corrext?
After looking at EBNF from RFC 5322 for 90 seconds, I /think/ that it is
using obs-id-right syntax. -- I say think because
An unknown MUA (user agent header removed by sender) writes its Message-IDs as
.
Is the header syntactically corrext?
A custom SpamAssassin rule added a penalty for syntax error, and another for
using a non-public address.
14 matches
Mail list logo
