On 11/21/2016 11:27 AM, Karl Denninger wrote:
On 11/21/2016 10:12, Karl Denninger wrote:
I'm using SpamAssassin on a system that uses Postfix for MTA and
Dovecot for handling final delivery. Spamassassin is being called
via Postfix through spamd with:
#
# Spam Assassin bayesian filter updat
On 11/21/2016 10:12, Karl Denninger wrote:
> I'm using SpamAssassin on a system that uses Postfix for MTA and
> Dovecot for handling final delivery. Spamassassin is being called via
> Postfix through spamd with:
>
> #
> # Spam Assassin bayesian filter updaters
> #
> sa-spam unix- n
I'm using SpamAssassin on a system that uses Postfix for MTA and Dovecot
for handling final delivery. Spamassassin is being called via Postfix
through spamd with:
#
# Spam Assassin bayesian filter updaters
#
sa-spam unix- n n - - pipe
user=spamd:spamd argv=/usr/l
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:29:20 -0600
Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
> Hi all,
> My Bayes scores are set to the default, i.e. Bayes_99 adds 3.5 points
> (I have network tests enabled). I'm considering just making this
> 5.0, so ANYTHING with Bayes_99 is automatically spam. I looked
> through my inbox
On 6/24/2013 1:29 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
> Has anyone modified their Bayes scoring priority, and if so, what were
> your experiences? What scores did you assign?
This has been discussed at length; perhaps start with this archived topic:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nab
this would still require some other rules to pop before getting
counted as spam, but would take care of all of these FNs with scores
of 4+ (but not the 3+ ones, though these are much more rare).
Has anyone modified their Bayes scoring priority, and if so, what
were your experiences? W
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 05:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
andrij wrote:
> How many tokens are used by the SA's bayes classifier to
> calculate the probability that the mail is spam/ham?
It varies. It uses all the tokens above a minimum token strength, up to
a maximum of 150.
I cannot, I should ask the owner of the e-mails. I tried with databases of
spam and ham e-mails. What is interesting it happened only to the database
of ham emails.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Bayes-scoring-tp29324885p29325278.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
raw example of one of those mails, not scored by bayes?
Daniel
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Bayes-scoring-tp29324885p29324968.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
context:
http://old.nabble.com/Bayes-scoring-tp29324885p29324885.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 03:11:50PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Did I overlook something in the documentation or ain't it possible
> at all without setting all those BAYES_* scores to 0?
It's not possible since the BAYES_* rules have no special meaning to
SpamAssassin. You wouldn't want to s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I want to throw the newly built Bayes DB onto our mailservers, but for
testing
purposes I do not want any Bayes score to influence the final spamscore,
but nevertheless I want it to become visible in the spam_report.
Basically I want to see how often Bayes mat
Hi all,
I want to throw the newly built Bayes DB onto our mailservers, but for
testing
purposes I do not want any Bayes score to influence the final spamscore,
but nevertheless I want it to become visible in the spam_report.
Basically I want to see how often Bayes matches ham/spam, without
it hav
At 07:08 PM 3/5/2005, Nigel Wilkinson wrote:
Why does a 99-100% probability score less than an 80-95% probability???
This is more-or-less a FAQ in SA now.
Rule scores in SA are not in any way linear.
The scores are not assigned based on performance, they're based on tuning
the scores of ALL of th
Nigel Wilkinson wrote:
> Why does a 99-100% probability score less than an 80-95% probability???
Because the Bayes engine is not the only factor in classifying a
message as spam. Along with that all of the other rules are factored
into it too. A message which is 99-100% probability is going to
t
Hi folks
can anyone explain the logic behind this.
Various spam gets tagged with the Bayes check but as follows
* 0.4 BAYES_60 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 60 to 80%
* [score: 0.6343]
* 2.1 BAYES_80 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 80 to 95%
* [sc
At 05:15 PM 9/7/2004, Justin Mason wrote:
BTW the idea of USER_IN_BLACKLIST being ignored for bayes is so
that if a user screws up and accidentally BLs a ham source, it
won't pollute Bayes as well.
I think in 3.0.0 we've added more logic so that it won't be learned
*at all* in that situation -- not
al Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 2:41 PM
To: Chris Blaise
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bayes scoring weirdness?
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 02:32:42PM -0600, Chris Blaise wrote:
> The rules were ALL_TRUSTED,MIS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 02:32:42PM -0600, Chris Blaise wrote:
> > The rules were ALL_TRUSTED,MISSING_DATE,USER_IN_BLACKLIST and I
> > think since "ALL_TRUSTED" is a negative value.
> >
> > Am I missing something abou
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 02:32:42PM -0600, Chris Blaise wrote:
> The rules were ALL_TRUSTED,MISSING_DATE,USER_IN_BLACKLIST and I
> think since "ALL_TRUSTED" is a negative value.
>
> Am I missing something about how auto-learn should consider this?
>
> Is there a reason why it d
In experimenting with white/blacklists and bayes, I got a message
that was in a blacklist but learned as ham!
2004 Sep 7 14:22:02 server spamd[8949]: identified spam (197.2/5.0) for
nobody:8 in 0.6 seconds, 191 bytes.
2004 Sep 7 14:22:02 server spamd[8949]: logmsg: result: Y 197 -
ALL_T
Theodore Heise wrote:
This seems counterintuitive to me, based on my understanding of
probability and statistics (which is admitedly just enough to be
dangerous). Is this a result of some interaction? For example a
message that meets BAYES_99 is also more likely to trigger some
network tests, so
Hi all,
This may have been addressed previously, but I couldn't find it in
the list archives.
I was looking over scores of my newly installed 3.0.0-rc2 and
noticed that for fourth column[1] the BAYES_95 score is higher than
BAYES_99.
score BAYES_00 0 0 -1.665 -2.599
score BAYES_
23 matches
Mail list logo
