On 2/25/2014 8:08 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Kevin A. McGrail wrote on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:06:59 -0500:
3.2.0 hasn't had updates since at least Jan of 2010 from looking
I thought there may not have been any updates since then. Time to do
upgrades :-)
But the eval rule nevertheless works if you
fixar det
/Lelle
Kai Schaetzl mailli...@conactive.com 14-02-20 12:33
Kevin A. McGrail wrote on Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:18:12 -0500:
body BAYES_99 eval:check_bayes('0.99', '0.999')
body BAYES_999 eval:check_bayes('0.999', '1.00')
score BAYES_99 0 0 3.83.5
score
On 2/20/2014 6:32 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Kevin A. McGrail wrote on Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:18:12 -0500:
body BAYES_99 eval:check_bayes('0.99', '0.999')
body BAYES_999 eval:check_bayes('0.999', '1.00')
score BAYES_99 0 0 3.83.5
score BAYES_999 0 0 4.03.7
I've also
Lennart Johansson wrote on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:58:21 +0100:
Which SA versions do get this new 999 rule? e.g. I have also older
installations with 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 that would need careful updating.
Just adding your rule seems to add 999 to the set of older setups as well,
although it wasn't
Kevin A. McGrail wrote on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:06:59 -0500:
3.2.0 hasn't had updates since at least Jan of 2010 from looking
I thought there may not have been any updates since then. Time to do
upgrades :-)
But the eval rule nevertheless works if you add it manually.
Thanks for all your hard
Hello,
seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in 72_scores.cf but
without score (and thus default 1.0) in 50_scores.cf.
... a mistake happened apparently?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising
On 02/17/2014 02:43 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in 72_scores.cf
but
without score (and thus default 1.0) in 50_scores.cf.
... a mistake happened apparently?
BAYES_999 is *not* BAYES_99
# Enhance Bayes scoring for
On 2/17/2014 8:43 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in
72_scores.cf but
without score (and thus default 1.0) in 50_scores.cf.
... a mistake happened apparently?
I'll look and see. I've never tried to promote a bayes rule so it
On 02/17/2014 03:09 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:43 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in
72_scores.cf but
without score (and thus default 1.0) in 50_scores.cf.
... a mistake happened apparently?
I'll look and see.
On 2/17/2014 9:13 AM, Axb wrote:
On 02/17/2014 03:09 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:43 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in
72_scores.cf but
without score (and thus default 1.0) in 50_scores.cf.
... a mistake
On 02/17/2014 03:24 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/17/2014 9:13 AM, Axb wrote:
On 02/17/2014 03:09 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:43 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
seems after last rule update we've got new rule BAYES_99 in
72_scores.cf but
without score (and thus
On Feb 17, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
could we agree to set the ceilings on lower safer scores?
In the interest of full disclosure, these rules are being tested because of me
(or at my suggestion anyway). I set them up locally based on discussion on this
very list
On 02/17/2014 04:21 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/17/2014 9:36 AM, Axb wrote:
could we agree to set the ceilings on lower safer scores?
Yes, I set the BAYES_999 to the existing score for BAYES_99 +0.2 as a
minor increase.
If possible use different rulenames so as not to tamper with the
(and thus default 1.0) in 50_scores.cf.
... a mistake happened apparently?
I'll look and see. I've never tried to promote a bayes rule so it
might need to bypass sandbox.
I have spam that's already hitting BAYES_999 with the default 1.0 score.
--As for the rest, it is mine.
Same here - it's
On 2/17/2014 12:40 PM, Daniel Staal wrote:
Same here - it's causing a fair amount of FNs, as I have BAYES_99 set
with a 4.7 score, so this is lowering the spam score for a lot of mail.
Might want to temporarily set a score for bayes_99 of 4.7 and create a
copy of bayes_999 also set to 4.7.
RW wrote:
I have spam that's already hitting BAYES_999 with the default 1.0 score.
I upgraded as well and am also hit by several problems causing more
spam to be classified as an FN and passing a lot of spam through
today. One of them is the BAYES_999 rule hitting with a score of 1.0
On 2/17/2014 12:48 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
RW wrote:
I have spam that's already hitting BAYES_999 with the default 1.0 score.
I upgraded as well and am also hit by several problems causing more
spam to be classified as an FN and passing a lot of spam through
today. One of them is the BAYES_999
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:21:21 -0500
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
In the end, all we are doing is adding a gradient for 99.9 to 100%. I
will change this in the base rules for better clarity instead because
we already have evidence it's a good move.
Score often don't follow the strength of a rule
18 matches
Mail list logo
