Steve Ingraham wrote:
> In 2) above you are telling me that 5.0 and even 2.5 is way too high.
Yes. Those are way too high.
> So what should it be?
It should be zero. This is the default. In other words do *not* set
it at all in your files.
> Again I do not understand the string of numbers th
Steve Ingraham wrote:
> My changes were done in the local.cf file so I am not familiar with the
> scores you show above.
Those are the default scores. If your scores are different then it is
a local modification. In other words this says not to blame
spamassassin for local changes.
> Can you te
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Steve Ingraham wrote:
I have already decreased the Bayes_50_Body rule from 5.0 to 2.5. I
don't want to decrease the scores with every Bayes rule because I
think
I will start seeing some true spam delivered because it did not score
high.
Any ideas?
Daryl wrote:
Don
On Friday, November 3, 2006, 10:45:42 AM, Péntek Imre wrote:
> Jim Maul wrote:
>> Are you using network tests, razor, surbl, add on rules from sare, etc?
> I can just guess, as I don't know how to get to be sure.
> I can find several spams marked with:
> RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET
> UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
>
Steve Ingraham wrote:
I have already decreased the Bayes_50_Body rule from 5.0 to 2.5. I
don't want to decrease the scores with every Bayes rule because I
think
I will start seeing some true spam delivered because it did not score
high.
Any ideas?
Daryl wrote:
Don't screw with the bayes sco
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Steve Ingraham wrote:
I have already decreased the Bayes_50_Body rule from 5.0 to 2.5. I
don't want to decrease the scores with every Bayes rule because I think
I will start seeing some true spam delivered because it did not score
high.
Any ideas
On Thursday 09 November 2006 22:14, Steve Ingraham took the opportunity
to
say:
> Ok, I have a question on these Bayes rules related to false positives.
> It appears that many of my users are having legitimate emails scored
in
> the 8 to 9 range. These emails are scoring high basically because
On Thursday 09 November 2006 22:14, Steve Ingraham took the opportunity to
say:
> Ok, I have a question on these Bayes rules related to false positives.
> It appears that many of my users are having legitimate emails scored in
> the 8 to 9 range. These emails are scoring high basically because t
> I have already decreased the Bayes_50_Body rule from 5.0 to 2.5. I
> don't want to decrease the scores with every Bayes rule because I
think
> I will start seeing some true spam delivered because it did not score
> high.
>
> Any ideas?
Daryl wrote:
Don't screw with the bayes scoring that drast
Steve Ingraham wrote:
I have already decreased the Bayes_50_Body rule from 5.0 to 2.5. I
don't want to decrease the scores with every Bayes rule because I think
I will start seeing some true spam delivered because it did not score
high.
Any ideas?
Don't screw with the bayes scoring that dras
>>> Hello,
>>> Why BAYES_99 have only the score 3.5 while 5.0 is required to
identify a >>>mail
>>> as spam? I think this rule should have a score about 5.1 (or
anything >>>greater
>>> than 5.0).
>>> Because it's baye_99 not bayes_100.
>>> ie: it's not 100% accurate.
> FWIW, I increased m
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Matt Kettler wrote:
Péntek Imre wrote:
Hello,
Why BAYES_99 have only the score 3.5 while 5.0 is required to identify a mail
as spam? I think this rule should have a score about 5.1 (or anything greater
than 5.0).
Because it's baye_99 not bayes_100.
ie: it's not 100% accu
From: "Jim Maul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Péntek Imre wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
I've upped the scores on almost all bayes rules here because history has
shown it to be incredibly accurate here.
Yes. BTW so far I've got no FP but still get false negatives with score 3.5, BAYES_99,
using this database:
Modify the score if you think that is appropriate. (I do. I score it at
5.1. The .1 is so I can be obnoxious in arguments about this,
like the argument which may start with your message.)
If you Bayes is VERY well trained with VERY few hams that come in
BAYES_99, like 1 in 1000 or less, t
Péntek Imre wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Why BAYES_99 have only the score 3.5 while 5.0 is required to identify a mail
> as spam? I think this rule should have a score about 5.1 (or anything greater
> than 5.0).
>
Because it's baye_99 not bayes_100.
ie: it's not 100% accurate.
Jim Maul wrote:
> I am not sure. It would seem so to me. Make sure you do not have -L
> being passed when starting spamd.
I've started reading that wikipage, so now I can test for sure:
$ spamassassin -t -D < spam > output 2>&1
$ grep network output
[6639] dbg: pyzor: network tests on, attempting
Péntek Imre wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
Are you using network tests, razor, surbl, add on rules from sare, etc?
I can just guess, as I don't know how to get to be sure.
I can find several spams marked with:
RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
URIBL_AB_SURB
Are these mean I also use network test
Jim Maul wrote:
> Are you using network tests, razor, surbl, add on rules from sare, etc?
I can just guess, as I don't know how to get to be sure.
I can find several spams marked with:
RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
URIBL_AB_SURB
Are these mean I also use network tests?
As I see I don't u
Péntek Imre wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
I've upped the scores on almost all bayes rules here because history has
shown it to be incredibly accurate here.
Yes. BTW so far I've got no FP but still get false negatives with score 3.5,
BAYES_99, using this database:
[5816] dbg: bayes: corpus size: nspam
Jim Maul wrote:
> I've upped the scores on almost all bayes rules here because history has
> shown it to be incredibly accurate here.
Yes. BTW so far I've got no FP but still get false negatives with score 3.5,
BAYES_99, using this database:
[5816] dbg: bayes: corpus size: nspam = 2757, nham = 140
Péntek Imre wrote:
Hello,
Why BAYES_99 have only the score 3.5 while 5.0 is required to identify a mail
as spam? I think this rule should have a score about 5.1 (or anything greater
than 5.0).
because if its wrong in its classification, then that 1 rule alone will
cause a FP. The whole ide
Hello,
Why BAYES_99 have only the score 3.5 while 5.0 is required to identify a mail
as spam? I think this rule should have a score about 5.1 (or anything greater
than 5.0).
--
With regards: Imre Péntek
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
22 matches
Mail list logo
