On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, David Gibbs wrote:
> While I agree that image spam is a PITA ... I have to wonder how
> ANYONE in the right mind could fall for that garbage.
>
> I mean, be real ... if the message you get contains an image,
> surrounded by garbage text, and the image quality is worse than a
--[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> Yes image spam can be a real pain.
While I agree that image spam is a PITA ... I have to wonder how ANYONE
in the right mind could fall for that garbage.
I mean, be real ... if the message you get contains an image, surrounded
by garbage text, and the image quality is wors
R Lists06 wrote:
Are you sure of this? Have you also trained these ham messages to
counter this effect? Not too long ago we were in the same situation.
I have autolearn enabled but I have adjusted the thresholds to avoid
This is quite possible. I have heard other stories of people using
thi
Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 23 March 2007 11:08:12 -0700 Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I think my problem might be is that I have done so much work
prescreening messages with Exim that what's left isn't good stock for
autolearn. I think what I need is a separate dedicated learner
--On 23 March 2007 11:08:12 -0700 Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I think my problem might be is that I have done so much work
prescreening messages with Exim that what's left isn't good stock for
autolearn. I think what I need is a separate dedicated learner server
that is select
Jim Maul wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Perhaps what I need to do is to get rid of autolearn and write my
own learning system that strips out the body of messages with
images and just learns the headers. My problem is that when users
get image spam they put
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Are you sure of this? Have you also trained these ham messages to
> >> counter this effect? Not too long ago we were in the same situation.
> >> I have autolearn enabled but I have adjusted the thresholds to avoid
> This is quite possible. I have heard other stories of peop
But with a good purge of bayes, a rebuild, and the
addition of sa-update rules,
How do you safely purge bayes anyway?
Matt
Marc Perkel wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Perhaps what I need to do is to get rid of autolearn and write my own
learning system that strips out the body of messages with images and
just learns the headers. My problem is that when users get image spam
they put it in the spam fold
Jim Maul wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Perhaps what I need to do is to get rid of autolearn and write my own
learning system that strips out the body of messages with images and
just learns the headers. My problem is that when users get image spam
they put it in the spam folders and they get lea
> >
> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:55:07 -0700, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of
> > > bayes poisoning going on I've found that bayes is just lowering
> > > the score
> > of
> > > spam and causing more spam to get through.
o: "Spamassassin talk list"
Subject: Re: Is Bayes Dead? Have the spammers won?
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:45:22 -0300
Well, my two cents on this:
When I upgraded my servers (about half a year ago) and started using a
mysql-based Bayes DB, image spams began to drive me crazy. Seemed like
Well, my two cents on this:
When I upgraded my servers (about half a year ago) and started using a
mysql-based Bayes DB, image spams began to drive me crazy. Seemed like there
was no way to stop them. But with a good purge of bayes, a rebuild, and the
addition of sa-update rules, it all began to g
Marc Perkel wrote:
Perhaps what I need to do is to get rid of autolearn and write my own
learning system that strips out the body of messages with images and
just learns the headers. My problem is that when users get image spam
they put it in the spam folders and they get learned. But the text
/me continues to wait for the spammers to tire of greylisting
I work for a managed hosting provider, and I have seen spam messages get
back customers' greylisting setups. It may be isolated, but some
spammers are already starting to work around it.
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Perhaps what I need to do is to get rid of autolearn and write my
> own learning system that strips out the body of messages with
> images and just learns the headers. My problem is that when users
> get image spam they put it in the spam folders and they
Yes image spam can be a real pain. I have just implemented a new mailserver and
image spam is certainly on the increase :-
mysql> select count(*) from maillog;
+--+
| count(*) |
+--+
|15091 |
+--+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> select count(*) from maillog where spam
Perhaps what I need to do is to get rid of autolearn and write my own
learning system that strips out the body of messages with images and
just learns the headers. My problem is that when users get image spam
they put it in the spam folders and they get learned. But the text in
the image spam c
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of bayes
> poisoning going on I've found that bayes is just lowering the score of
> spam and causing more spam to get through. Where bayes used to be the
> centerpiece of s
On 3/22/07, Kris Deugau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyone using SA in an ISP environment will run into this problem;
I agree here, I am using SA in an ISP and I have disabled Bayes. There
is no way I can get regular good supply of ham from our customers. No
one want's to forward their good mail
I was wondering the same thing, idly. Then one day my Bayes stopped
working and I went from 30-40 spams getting through in a day to 500-600
getting through. Believe me, I think Bayes is doing a decent job of
adding to the scores of spammy messages...
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with
> -Messaggio originale-
> Da: --[ UxBoD ]-- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Using a combination of numerous SA rules, bayes, FuzzyOCR and BotNet on
> a new server Ive just built we are trashing the SPAM. Attached graph
> is for today :-
What does "received" mean in the graph?
Giampaolo
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:41:03PM -0500, maillist wrote:
> I don't know about that. I'd say that 95% of all spam filtered in my
> system has BAYES_99 as a trigger, and of that, probably 75% - 85% would
> not have been caught if not for that trigger.
Don't confuse filtering methods with rules.
On 22-mrt-2007, at 20:02, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Where bayes used to be the centerpiece of spam filtering ...
FWIW, I don't think Bayes has really ever been the "centerpiece" of
spam filtering. Definitely not within SA anyway. It
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Where bayes used to be the centerpiece of spam filtering ...
FWIW, I don't think Bayes has really ever been the "centerpiece" of
spam filtering. Definitely not within SA anyway. It's a good tool,
but
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Where bayes used to be the centerpiece of spam filtering ...
FWIW, I don't think Bayes has really ever been the "centerpiece" of
spam filtering. Definitely not within SA anyway. It's a good tool,
but it's just another tool in the bel
Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of bayes
poisoning going on I've found that bayes is just lowering the score of
spam and causing more spam to get through.
So is there actually any re
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Kris Deugau wrote:
> John D. Hardin wrote:
> > I've never trusted automatic learning. Why let your Bayes database be
> > (even partially) under the control of a third party, particularly
> > when that third party is the attacker?
>
> Because there's no other (practical and/
John D. Hardin wrote:
I've never trusted automatic learning. Why let your Bayes database be
(even partially) under the control of a third party, particularly
when that third party is the attacker?
Because there's no other (practical and/or ethical) way of getting
enough ham to make it useful?
Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of bayes
poisoning going on I've found that bayes is just lowering the score of
spam and causing more spam to get through.
So is there actua
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of
> bayes poisoning going on I've found that bayes is just lowering
> the score of spam and causing more spam to get through. Where
> bayes used to be the centerpiece of spam filtering now I hav
Using a combination of numerous SA rules, bayes, FuzzyOCR and BotNet on a new
server Ive just built we are trashing the SPAM. Attached graph is for today :-
Regards,
UxBoD
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:55:07 -0700, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the
Hi,
My Bayes is just as accurate as it has always been.
Any false negatives usually all have BAYES_99 in them, they just don't
have enough other rule hits to raise the overall score above the threshold.
Marc Perkel wrote:
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of bayes
Maybe I'm doing something wrong but with the various methods of bayes
poisoning going on I've found that bayes is just lowering the score of
spam and causing more spam to get through. Where bayes used to be the
centerpiece of spam filtering now I have turned it off to increase accuracy.
Anyone
34 matches
Mail list logo