Before anyone rushes ahead and puts any time or money into this. I
think it's worth establishing whether it makes any significant
difference.
It solves several real world problems that I'm aware of but I agree it's
not going to hold up 3.4.0 or be a top priority for me.
regards,
KAM
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 07:59:39 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Yes and no. What you have missed is that David F Skoll is a key
> author of MIMEDefang. They also publish a great COTS solution for
> email filtering called CanIT. So his plugin is part of the commercial
> product.
AFAIK his Bayes uses
Yes and no. What you have missed is that David F Skoll is a key author of
MIMEDefang. They also publish a great COTS solution for email filtering called
CanIT. So his plugin is part of the commercial product.
However, his idea is very elegant on tokens is an elegant idea. To extract
them, I pla
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 07:51:07 +0100
Per-Erik Persson wrote:
> Since we are on the subject of adding "magic links" to email header to
> make it easier for nontech staff to report spam.
> I don't understand how to extract the tokinzed data needed to
> represent the specific email.
We have an entire
Am 22.03.2012 09:15, schrieb xTrade Assessory:
> Robert Schetterer wrote:
>>>
>>
>> however , i have a ham/spam transport learn mail address,
>> nearly null users forwards something to it, no wonder
>> the false positve rate is nearly null
>>
>> in fact , there are systems with webmail guis for cla
On 03/22/2012 07:59 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> Am 22.03.2012 07:51, schrieb Per-Erik Persson:
>> Since we are on the subject of adding "magic links" to email header to
>> make it easier for nontech staff to report spam.
>> I don't understand how to extract the tokinzed data needed to represent
Robert Schetterer wrote:
>>
>
> however , i have a ham/spam transport learn mail address,
> nearly null users forwards something to it, no wonder
> the false positve rate is nearly null
>
> in fact , there are systems with webmail guis for classify
> spam i.e aol, reality shows users dont use it
Am 22.03.2012 07:51, schrieb Per-Erik Persson:
> Since we are on the subject of adding "magic links" to email header to
> make it easier for nontech staff to report spam.
> I don't understand how to extract the tokinzed data needed to represent
> the specific email.
> Have I missed some plugin that
Since we are on the subject of adding "magic links" to email header to
make it easier for nontech staff to report spam.
I don't understand how to extract the tokinzed data needed to represent
the specific email.
Have I missed some plugin that everyone else knows about?
The rest of the problem seem
Den 2012-03-21 13:38, Michael Scheidell skrev:
so, what would you manually learn?
using dspam then its not a problem, it only needs dspam signature
internet > postfix > dspam > postfix > exchange relay transport
now exchange have the dspam signature and can report back if its spam
or ham, h
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:41:31 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> But, what do you do about an email that was forwarded to someone else?
> And, that someone else has one of those silly anti-malware plugins
> that surfs to every url in any inbound email?
By default, our system won't allow training un
On 3/21/2012 10:41 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 3/21/12 9:57 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Very elegant IMO. I'd love to look at moving some of the framework
to support this into SA. Any objections? Won't be anything quick
but it's a really great idea.
We thought about this once.
add (ie
On 3/21/12 9:57 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Very elegant IMO. I'd love to look at moving some of the framework to
support this into SA. Any objections? Won't be anything quick but
it's a really great idea.
We thought about this once.
add (ie: modify body of email) with 'report spam', 'blac
On 3/21/2012 10:03 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:57:33 -0400
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
[Storing Bayes tokens on the server and retrieving them when training]
Very elegant IMO. I'd love to look at moving some of the framework
to support this into SA. Any objections? Won't
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:57:33 -0400
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
[Storing Bayes tokens on the server and retrieving them when training]
> Very elegant IMO. I'd love to look at moving some of the framework
> to support this into SA. Any objections? Won't be anything quick
> but it's a really great
On 3/21/2012 9:30 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Actually, there's a third way and it's what we do (but difficult to
set up with pure SpamAssassin.) We tokenize inbound messages and store
the tokens on the server. In each message, we add links for doing
training. When you click on a training link, t
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:44:49 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Mangling data by exchange is a big. problem when trying to filter
> spam in front of it. I see two ways to avoid this problem:
> - use spam server for exchange. We use one from GFI, with quite good
> results.
> - you can use spa
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:06:58 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 16:38:49 +0100
> >Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >No, it isn't. Bayes is a statistical filter it needs to learn a lot
> >of diverse spam and ham to reach it's optimum accuracy. It's been
> >demonstrated on Bo
On 3/21/12 5:06 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
there are two problems when requiring users to manually learn on
everythhing.
- it's more work to implement
- it's more work for users to do the training.
On 21.03.12 08:38, Michael Scheidell wrote:
and, if 95% of the users are using microsoft
On 3/21/12 5:06 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
there are two problems when requiring users to manually learn on
everythhing.
- it's more work to implement
- it's more work for users to do the training.
and, if 95% of the users are using microsoft exchange, exchange will
horribly mangle the h
On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 16:38:49 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
You can of course configure mailer to train automatically on anything
received/delivered. However this would apparently cause much more
FP's and FN's rate than letting user train only those that misfire.
On 10.03.12 00:07, RW wrot
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:56:52 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
>
> On 09 Mar 2012, at 17:07 , RW wrote:
>
> > It's been demonstrated on Bogofilter that "train-on-everything"
> > outperforms "train-on-error" on the same corpora. They both end-up
> > with similar accuracy, but "train-on-everything" gets there
On 09 Mar 2012, at 17:07 , RW wrote:
> It's been demonstrated on Bogofilter that "train-on-everything" outperforms
> "train-on-error" on the same corpora. They both end-up with similar accuracy,
> but "train-on-everything" gets there very much faster.
But training is exceedingly slow. Under no
On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 16:38:49 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> You can of course configure mailer to train automatically on anything
> received/delivered. However this would apparently cause much more
> FP's and FN's rate than letting user train only those that misfire.
The use of the word
On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:38:21 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On 05.03.12 12:15, RW wrote:
>> >I don't like it. It relies on FPs being removed from the SPAM
>> >folder rather than spam being sent to a learn-spam folder.
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:35:05 +0100
>Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> P
On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:38:21 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >> On 05.03.12 12:15, RW wrote:
> >> >I don't like it. It relies on FPs being removed from the SPAM
> >> >folder rather than spam being sent to a learn-spam folder.
>
> >On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:35:05 +0100
> >Matus UHLAR - fantomas w
On 05.03.12 12:15, RW wrote:
>I don't like it. It relies on FPs being removed from the SPAM folder
>rather than spam being sent to a learn-spam folder.
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:35:05 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Pardon me, but:
Usage for end users
*move mail into SPAM folder to clas
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:35:05 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 05.03.12 12:15, RW wrote:
> >I don't like it. It relies on FPs being removed from the SPAM folder
> >rather than spam being sent to a learn-spam folder.
>
> Pardon me, but:
>
> Usage for end users
>
> *move mail into SPA
On 04.03.12 14:02, RW wrote:
>An alternative would be to be more selective. I'm not sure if this is
>specific to dovecot but when I copy/move a file in IMAP the new
>maildir file has the same mtime, but a new epoch time in the file
>name. What you might do is generate a list of filenames that co
Hi,
do you have per virtual user Bayes training? or sitewide virtual user?
Because I have a setup like yours and everything goes fine ! In my
setup users move by hand to spam folder FNs and retrieve from spam
folder to inbox FPs ! When they make that movements a script copies
those spam/ham to a s
Am 05.03.2012 13:15, schrieb RW:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:54:22 +0100
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>> On 04.03.12 14:02, RW wrote:
>>> An alternative would be to be more selective. I'm not sure if this is
>>> specific to dovecot but when I copy/move a file in IMAP the new
>>> maildir file has
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:54:22 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 04.03.12 14:02, RW wrote:
> >An alternative would be to be more selective. I'm not sure if this is
> >specific to dovecot but when I copy/move a file in IMAP the new
> >maildir file has the same mtime, but a new epoch time in the
LuKreme wrote:
I sued to have a setup where IMAP users could put mail into either
SPAM or Junk mailboxes to have it auto trained and then I had a
script that stepped through and did the training, and it also
processed non-new mail in the inbox as ham.
On 04.03.12 07:55, xTrade Assessory wrote
On 04.03.12 14:02, RW wrote:
An alternative would be to be more selective. I'm not sure if this is
specific to dovecot but when I copy/move a file in IMAP the new
maildir file has the same mtime, but a new epoch time in the file name.
What you might do is generate a list of filenames that contain
On 2012/03/04 11:57, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, jdow wrote:
On 2012/03/04 10:30, LuKreme wrote:
On 04 Mar 2012, at 05:36 , xTrade Assessory wrote:
> question is if necessary ...
Being able to train mis-tagged spam is necessary, yes. I don’t see
anyway to process a message in a mai
4.3.2012 22:44, LuKreme kirjoitti:
> Trouble with simply moving the messages about in the shell between Maildirs
> is that the courier files don’t get updated properly.
>
I move my files all the time, and no problems occurred so far. I use
Courier too...
--
Things past redress and now with m
On 04 Mar 2012, at 12:57 , John Hardin wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, jdow wrote:
>
>> On 2012/03/04 10:30, LuKreme wrote:
>>> On 04 Mar 2012, at 05:36 , xTrade Assessory wrote:
>>> > question is if necessary ...
>>>
>>> Being able to train mis-tagged spam is necessary, yes. I don’t see
>>> anyw
4.3.2012 20:49, jdow kirjoitti:
> On 2012/03/04 10:30, LuKreme wrote:
>> On 04 Mar 2012, at 05:36 , xTrade Assessory wrote:
>>> question is if necessary ...
>>
>> Being able to train mis-tagged spam is necessary, yes. I don’t see
>> anyway to process a message in a maildir and then move that messag
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, jdow wrote:
On 2012/03/04 10:30, LuKreme wrote:
On 04 Mar 2012, at 05:36 , xTrade Assessory wrote:
> question is if necessary ...
Being able to train mis-tagged spam is necessary, yes. I don’t see
anyway to process a message in a maildir and then move that message.
How
On 2012/03/04 10:30, LuKreme wrote:
On 04 Mar 2012, at 05:36 , xTrade Assessory wrote:
question is if necessary ...
Being able to train mis-tagged spam is necessary, yes. I don’t see anyway to
process a message in a maildir and then move that message. How would you do it?
bash script with f
On 04 Mar 2012, at 05:36 , xTrade Assessory wrote:
> question is if necessary ...
Being able to train mis-tagged spam is necessary, yes. I don’t see anyway to
process a message in a maildir and then move that message. How would you do it?
--
Lister: What d'ya think of Betty? Cat: Betty Rubble?
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:36:25 -0300
xTrade Assessory wrote:
> LuKreme wrote:
> > On 04 Mar 2012, at 03:55 , xTrade Assessory wrote:
> >
> >> what do you think of something less complex?
> > Yeah, I went with Junk/NotJunk, anything placed in Junk gets
> > trained as spam, anything in NotJunk trained
LuKreme wrote:
> On 04 Mar 2012, at 03:55 , xTrade Assessory wrote:
>
>> what do you think of something less complex?
> Yeah, I went with Junk/NotJunk, anything placed in Junk gets trained as spam,
> anything in NotJunk trained as ham. What I’d like to do though is move the
> messages that are in
On 04 Mar 2012, at 03:55 , xTrade Assessory wrote:
> what do you think of something less complex?
Yeah, I went with Junk/NotJunk, anything placed in Junk gets trained as spam,
anything in NotJunk trained as ham. What I’d like to do though is move the
messages that are in NotJunk to the inbox m
LuKreme wrote:
> I sued to have a setup where IMAP users could put mail into either SPAM or
> Junk mailboxes to have it auto trained and then I had a script that stepped
> through and did the training, and it also processed non-new mail in the inbox
> as ham.
Hi
what do you think of something
I sued to have a setup where IMAP users could put mail into either SPAM or Junk
mailboxes to have it auto trained and then I had a script that stepped through
and did the training, and it also processed non-new mail in the inbox as ham.
USERROOT="$HOME";
MAILP="Maildir";
J_PATH="$USERROOT/${
46 matches
Mail list logo
