Re: Increase BAYES_99 score?

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017, Bill Cole wrote: On 10 Jan 2017, at 10:55, Michael B Allen wrote: bayes_file_mode 0777 Don't do that. Ever. It is not necessary, despite having been propagated widely as a supposed solution for system-wide Bayes permission issues. The clear indicator that whoever

Re: Increase BAYES_99 score?

On 10 Jan 2017, at 10:55, Michael B Allen wrote: bayes_file_mode 0777 Don't do that. Ever. It is not necessary, despite having been propagated widely as a supposed solution for system-wide Bayes permission issues. The clear indicator that whoever devised that was flailing in sheer

Re: Increase BAYES_99 score?

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Tom Hendrikx wrote: > > > On 10-01-17 07:07, Michael B Allen wrote: >> If I understand correctly, the BAYES_X tags add a value corresponding >> to the X value. So BAYES_99 is basically adding 0.99 to the spam >> score? > > This is incorrect.

Re: Increase BAYES_99 score?

On 10-01-17 07:07, Michael B Allen wrote: > If I understand correctly, the BAYES_X tags add a value corresponding > to the X value. So BAYES_99 is basically adding 0.99 to the spam > score? This is incorrect. The number in the tag only corresponds with the result of the bayesian classification.

Increase BAYES_99 score?

If I understand correctly, the BAYES_X tags add a value corresponding to the X value. So BAYES_99 is basically adding 0.99 to the spam score? Ideally I feel it should be possible to scale this value such as by using simple multiplication or even exponentially. Is it possible to increase the

Re: BAYES_99 score

On 22/10/12 19:15, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 10/22, JP Kelly wrote: Should I set the BAYES_99 score high enough to trigger as spam? I get plenty of spam getting through which does not get caught because BAYES_99 is the only rule which fires and it is not set to score at or above

Re: BAYES_99 score

24.10.2012 18:19, Ned Slider kirjoitti: I have had very good success running adjusted scores for BAYES rules, but I am very careful how I train my bayes database. I've disabled auto-learning and only manually train on hand-checked ham and spam examples. Consequently, I find the extremes

Re: BAYES_99 score

On 10/24/2012 8:35 AM, Jari Fredriksson wrote: 24.10.2012 18:19, Ned Slider kirjoitti: I have had very good success running adjusted scores for BAYES rules, but I am very careful how I train my bayes database. I've disabled auto-learning and only manually train on hand-checked ham and spam

Re: BAYES_99 score

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Cathryn Mataga wrote: On 10/24/2012 8:35 AM, Jari Fredriksson wrote: 24.10.2012 18:19, Ned Slider kirjoitti: I have had very good success running adjusted scores for BAYES rules, but I am very careful how I train my bayes database. I've disabled auto-learning and

BAYES_99 score

Should I set the BAYES_99 score high enough to trigger as spam? I get plenty of spam getting through which does not get caught because BAYES_99 is the only rule which fires and it is not set to score at or above the threshold.

Re: BAYES_99 score

On 10/22, JP Kelly wrote: Should I set the BAYES_99 score high enough to trigger as spam? I get plenty of spam getting through which does not get caught because BAYES_99 is the only rule which fires and it is not set to score at or above the threshold. You could. Some people only use

Re: BAYES_99 score

22.10.2012 21:15, dar...@chaosreigns.com kirjoitti: Huh, ruleqa doesn't track hits to BAYES_99? If it did, against which database it would do that? Just askin... -- I'm out of options for now. It is something that has gone wrong in the apt-get region (can't find a good expression for that)

Re: BAYES_99 score

On 10/23, Jari Fredriksson wrote: 22.10.2012 21:15, dar...@chaosreigns.com kirjoitti: Huh, ruleqa doesn't track hits to BAYES_99? If it did, against which database it would do that? It would show the hit rates in the corpora of the masscheck submitters, like everything else. So, the

Re: BAYES_99 score

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 10/23, Jari Fredriksson wrote: 22.10.2012 21:15, dar...@chaosreigns.com kirjoitti: Huh, ruleqa doesn't track hits to BAYES_99? If it did, against which database it would do that? It would show the hit rates in the corpora of the

Re: BAYES_99 score lint

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, MySQL Student wrote: meta LOCAL_BAYES_RTF(BAYES_99 LOCAL_CTYP_RTF) score LOCAL_BAYES_RTF 1.5 describe LOCAL_BAYES_RTF Rule by AS: Probably an Inline RTF spam mimeheader LOCAL_CTYP_RTFContent-Type =~ /^application\/octet-stream.\.rtf/i score

Re: BAYES_99 score lint

John Hardin wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, MySQL Student wrote: meta LOCAL_BAYES_RTF(BAYES_99 LOCAL_CTYP_RTF) score LOCAL_BAYES_RTF 1.5 describe LOCAL_BAYES_RTF Rule by AS: Probably an Inline RTF spam If the only thing it's complaining about during lint is the zero

BAYES_99 score lint

Hi all, When I run spamassassin -D --lint, I receive this output: [14406] info: rules: meta test LOCAL_BAYES_RTF has dependency 'BAYES_99' with a zero score Which is it saying has a zero score? BAYES_99 in 50_scores.cf is shown as: score BAYES_99 0 0 3.5 3.5 The LOCAL_BAYES_RTF is a meta

Re: BAYES_99 score lint

The debug output is saying that the meta rule, LOCAL_BAYES_RTF, has a dependency, BAYES_99, which has a 0 score. In the score line, there are two zero values. ;) It depends what scoreset you're running in. Also, just because 50_scores.cf has something set doesn't mean something later on doesn't

Re: BAYES_99 score lint

On 22 Jun, 2009, at 12:50 , MySQL Student wrote: Ideas greatly appreciated. Post your entire scoring block for LOCAL_BAYES_RTF -- Updated to be PRCE compatible after 400 years: /(bb|[^b]{2})/

Re: BAYES_99 score lint

Post your entire scoring block for LOCAL_BAYES_RTF meta LOCAL_BAYES_RTF(BAYES_99 LOCAL_CTYP_RTF) score LOCAL_BAYES_RTF 1.5 describe LOCAL_BAYES_RTF Rule by AS: Probably an Inline RTF spam mimeheader LOCAL_CTYP_RTFContent-Type =~