what it can be the reason of the different score assigned?
why the second system doesn't assign an AWL score?
They give different Bayes scores so the Bayes databases have
been trained with different messages. Do you have autolearn
switched on?
# Bayesian classifier auto-learning
Hi,
Rocco Scappatura wrote:
what it can be the reason of the different score assigned?
why the second system doesn't assign an AWL score?
They give different Bayes scores so the Bayes databases have
been trained with different messages. Do you have autolearn
switched on?
# Bayesian
Do I have to set it to 0?
No, but that may explain why the two servers have different
Bayes scores for similar messages. If they receive different
message streams they will be learning a different view of the
email world.
OK. Thanks all clear for me!!
But Then how I have to
Rocco Scappatura wrote:
So you are saying that I have to train SA?
That would be how you would improve your Bayes accuracy, yes.
I have trained SA on my server but I still get a score lower than 5.0..
Content analysis details: (4.3 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name
Hello,
SA have not blocked an email with this headers:
Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0
Received: from posta.sttspa.it ([80.74.176.144]) by srv5.stt.loc with
Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:14:08 +0100
Received: by posta.sttspa.it (Postfix, from userid
If you can post the full email (headers and body), I'll run it over my
system which has lots and lots of third party add on rules from
www.rulesemporium.com and others and see if I can make SA
score it high
enough for Amavisd-new to block the email..
Thanks.
http://www.rocsca.it/INBOX
I
http://www.rocsca.it/INBOX
Could someone give me an hint on how to block email like the one above?
Thanks,
rocsca
I get the following score:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 14 07:13:02 2007
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on
I get the following:
Content analysis details: (5.7 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
1.7 SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3
Content analysis details: (5.7 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
1.7 SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3 BODY: Last week's
Hi,
Rocco Scappatura wrote:
I get the following:
Content analysis details: (5.7 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
1.7
Assuming this is your score line:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.5 required=5.0
tests=AWL,BAYES_50,HTML_30_40,
HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TEXT_AFTER_BODY,MIME_HTML_ONLY,SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3
autolearn=no version=3.1.8
Then the biggest difference is that my Bayesian scoring gives it a
Rocco Scappatura wrote:
Assuming this is your score line:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.5 required=5.0
tests=AWL,BAYES_50,HTML_30_40,
HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TEXT_AFTER_BODY,MIME_HTML_ONLY,SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3
autolearn=no version=3.1.8
Then the biggest difference is that my Bayesian
So you are saying that I have to train SA?
That would be how you would improve your Bayes accuracy, yes.
I have trained SA on my server but I still get a score lower than 5.0..
Content analysis details: (4.3 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 5:49 am, Rocco Scappatura wrote:
If you can post the full email (headers and body), I'll run it over my
system which has lots and lots of third party add on rules from
www.rulesemporium.com and others and see if I can make SA
score it high
enough for
14 matches
Mail list logo
