Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

e: > On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 17:02 -0500, Kris Deugau wrote: >> Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > >> > UNPARSABLE_RELAY was happening because I modify the headers of >> > every message sent through my server in order to anonymize the >> > sender's IP address

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Monday, November 11 2013, I wrote: > Hi there, Hi, again! I am sorry to ressurect this thread, but after some time, investigation and fixes, I would like to share what I did and ask for more opinions. First, I have fixed the previous warnings that I was seeing on the messages. URI_BLOCKED w

Re: Enabling allow-tell?

On Wednesday, November 13 2013, Florian Lindner wrote: > What is about autolearning, which is not done using sa-learn? Does this need > the --allow-tell switch? autolearn is done by spamd internally, not needing any intervention by external programs, therefore it also doesn't need --allow-tell.

Re: Enabling allow-tell?

On Wednesday, November 13 2013, Florian Lindner wrote: > Hello, Hey there, > I'm a bit confused by the allow-tell option in spamd. > > My setup is so that all configuration is done by the system users, they use > spamc only for perfomance reasons. Users use their local bayes database and > sho

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Tuesday, November 12 2013, Benny Pedersen wrote: > Karsten Bräckelmann skrev den 2013-11-12 03:20: > >> [1] Also, just as shown in this thread, properly handling list posts is >> not trivial. > > maillist is good ham learning spams :) Yeah, that's a good reason to keep scanning mailing lis

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Monday, November 11 2013, John Hardin wrote: > It's a very good idea to retain your training corpora. It makes it a > lot easier to review if Bayes goes off the rails, and to wipe and > retrain from scratch if problems occur. That's a good reason for keeping them around. >> Currently, in my .

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Monday, November 11 2013, John Hardin wrote: > On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > >> Here is an example of a misclassified spam message: >> >> <http://sergiodj.net/~sergio/sa/spam.txt> > > There's not a lot there for SA to work with.

Re: SA not correctly classifying spam

On Monday, November 11 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 20:26 -0200, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >> Here is an example of a misclassified spam message: >><http://sergiodj.net/~sergio/sa/spam.txt> >> >> (This spam message was sent to a

SA not correctly classifying spam

Hi there, As requested by Karsten here (I took the liberty to include him in the Cc list): I am starting this new thread in order to try to solve/identify what's going on with my SA instance (*if* there's anyt

Re: Positive / Negative

On Monday, November 11 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > 'sa-learn --dump magic' still shows less than 200 nham / nspam, right? Yes, it does. > Until that issue is resolved, please keep the spam for potential further > post-receiving tests. Will certainly do. > Not strictly SA configuration,

Re: Positive / Negative

On Sunday, November 10 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 03:32 -0200, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >> On Sunday, November 10 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > >> For all messages that I received since I started using SA (about 20 >> message

Re: spamc -L apparently not working properly

On Sunday, November 10 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > nham is the "Number of HAM" learned, in messages. Same for nspam. Keep > training until both are at least 200 -- accuracy should improve > dramatically after that. I figured that out. > Keep an eye on the X-Spam-Status header, autolearn b

Re: spamc -L apparently not working properly

On Sunday, November 10 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 01:59 -0200, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >> Nice, thanks both of you for the answers. >> >> I am now feeding SA with ham from my INBOX, while I also feed it with >> false-negatives (intere

Re: spamc -L apparently not working properly

On Saturday, November 09 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > Ham is good mail, messages you want (or actually subscribed to), > messages sent to you with your consent. Spam is junk, unsolicited mail > sent to you without your consent. Regardless of SA classification or > score. > > False positives

Re: spamc -L apparently not working properly

On Saturday, November 09 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > You don't have any kind of archive of spam? If so, train on recent ones, > feel free to exceed the minimum limit, but don't bother too much with > old spam. It changes much faster over time than ham does. > > Also, at least until you reac

Re: spamc -L apparently not working properly

On Friday, November 08 2013, Amir Caspi wrote: >> What's your opinion? > > I would run spamd as root and initiate spamc with the -u option, to allow > each user to have his/her own Bayes DB. However, again, it really depends > on what kind of email system you're running, and how you want to handl

Re: spamc -L apparently not working properly

On Friday, November 08 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 16:09 -0200, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >> #> spamc -c < spam.file >> 0.0/5.0 >> #> spamc -L spam < spam.file >> (successful message saying that the spam was learned

Re: spamc -L apparently not working properly

On Friday, November 08 2013, John Hardin wrote: >> I don't think sa-learn can help with spamd. Its own manpage mention >> that, for spamd users, "spamc -L" is the way to go. > > Not true. sa-learn is just fine for spamd with a global Bayes > database, and it's recommended for administrative simpl

Re: spamc -L apparently not working properly

On Friday, November 08 2013, Amir Caspi wrote: > On Fri, November 8, 2013 2:39 pm, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >> I don't think sa-learn can help with spamd. Its own manpage mention >> that, for spamd users, "spamc -L" is the way to go. >> >> Hm, re

Re: spamc -L apparently not working properly

On Friday, November 08 2013, John Hardin wrote: > On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > >> #> spamc -c < spam.file >> 0.0/5.0 >> #> spamc -L spam < spam.file >> (successful message saying that the spam was learned) >> #> sp

Re: spamc -L apparently not working properly

On Friday, November 08 2013, John Hardin wrote: > Not directly addressing your other questions but: running spamassassin > directly is only really suitable for *very* low-traffic environments, > as that will parse and compile all of the rules and other config *per > message*, which is a lot of ove

spamc -L apparently not working properly

Hey there, I am using Debian Wheezy here (therefore, Exim + Dovecot for e-mail), and I am still deciding how to run SpamAssassin. I am divided between running it by directly calling spamassassin, or by running spamd and calling spamc. Both methods are going to be used via my .procmailrc. Well,