On Dienstag 19 Mai 2009 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Again, I believe the "your fault" wasn't the intention. But that this
> is a test, *needs* testers, and you can do it without *any* impact to
> your results.
Yes of course. I just meant you can't ask people to use your tests and
then blame them
On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 21:19 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 18-May-2009, at 19:02, Michael Monnerie wrote:
> > I didn't mean that the final result be a FP, just this one ruleset.
> > Shouldn't the goal be to have no FPs and lots of corrects?
>
> In a word? No.
I don't think you understood what that DN
On 18-May-2009, at 19:02, Michael Monnerie wrote:
I didn't mean that the final result be a FP, just this one ruleset.
Shouldn't the goal be to have no FPs and lots of corrects?
In a word? No.
Test are designed to be cumulative. Something that is seen 75% of the
time in spam and 25% of the t
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 03:02 +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Sonntag 17 Mai 2009 Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> > > That said, I'll implement and test it, and hopefully it's good,
> > > with no FPs.
> >
> > How can score of 0.001 cause a false positive?
>
> I didn't mean that the final result be a
On Sonntag 17 Mai 2009 Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> > I generally like the idea. But this project is in the beginners
> > phase, and a whole lot of people will want to wait until others
> > report it's benefits. After all, who wishes to put it in production
> > and then maybe it causes a lot of FPs?
LuKreme wrote:
> On 17-May-2009, at 06:32, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
>> On 5/17/2009 2:09 PM, LuKreme wrote:
>>> On 16-May-2009, at 21:25, Bill Landry wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
> grep EMAILBL /var/log/maillog.1 | grep -v "is spam" | wc -l
>
> ??
How is that going to work if yo
On 17-May-2009, at 06:32, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 5/17/2009 2:09 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 16-May-2009, at 21:25, Bill Landry wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
grep EMAILBL /var/log/maillog.1 | grep -v "is spam" | wc -l
??
How is that going to work if you are telling grep to output
everything
that d
On 5/17/2009 3:41 PM, Steve Freegard wrote:
Who cares if they have strict blocks on stuff coming in to their network
- an EMAILBL listing is all about whether or not spammers/scammers use
their service for drop-boxes, spew mail out from their service or use
their domain name. Whereas URIBLs are
Michael Monnerie wrote:
> I generally like the idea. But this project is in the beginners phase,
> and a whole lot of people will want to wait until others report it's
> benefits. After all, who wishes to put it in production and then maybe
> it causes a lot of FPs?
Duh:
score EMAILBL 0.001
*
On 5/17/2009 3:22 PM, Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Sonntag 17 Mai 2009 Yet Another Ninja wrote:
The future of this project depends if the concept is of any use. The
lack of feedback, any kind, must mean its of little value so it might
as well be drowned at birth.
I generally like the idea. But t
On Sonntag 17 Mai 2009 Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> The future of this project depends if the concept is of any use. The
> lack of feedback, any kind, must mean its of little value so it might
> as well be drowned at birth.
I generally like the idea. But this project is in the beginners phase,
and
On 5/17/2009 2:09 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 16-May-2009, at 21:25, Bill Landry wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
grep EMAILBL /var/log/maillog.1 | grep -v "is spam" | wc -l
??
How is that going to work if you are telling grep to output everything
that does NOT contain "is spam" (-v = select non-matching lin
On 16-May-2009, at 21:25, Bill Landry wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
grep EMAILBL /var/log/maillog.1 | grep -v "is spam" | wc -l
??
How is that going to work if you are telling grep to output everything
that does NOT contain "is spam" (-v = select non-matching lines)?
Right. How many emails that we
LuKreme wrote:
> On 16-May-2009, at 02:43, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
>> On 5/13/2009 9:33 AM, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
>>> Assuming Henrik may appreciate some stats, even if minimal like below:
>>> Yesterday's hits:
>>> grep EMAILBL/var/log/maillog.1 | wc -l
>>> 1263
>>
>> Friday's count:
>>
>>
On 16-May-2009, at 02:43, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 5/13/2009 9:33 AM, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
Assuming Henrik may appreciate some stats, even if minimal like
below:
Yesterday's hits:
grep EMAILBL/var/log/maillog.1 | wc -l
1263
Friday's count:
grep 'is spam'/var/log/maillog.1
On 5/13/2009 9:33 AM, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
Assuming Henrik may appreciate some stats, even if minimal like below:
Yesterday's hits:
grep EMAILBL/var/log/maillog.1 | wc -l
1263
Friday's count:
grep 'is spam'/var/log/maillog.1 | wc -l
22397
grep EMAILBL/var/log/maillog.1 |
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
Assuming Henrik may appreciate some stats, even if minimal like below:
Yesterday's hits:
grep EMAILBL/var/log/maillog.1 | wc -l
1263
Not so good here, well good, but not so usable on the spam we see.
Total messages tagged as spam by SA was 29k, 290 tagged by EM
Assuming Henrik may appreciate some stats, even if minimal like below:
Yesterday's hits:
grep EMAILBL/var/log/maillog.1 | wc -l
1263
18 matches
Mail list logo
