jdow wrote:
> From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > jdow wrote:
> > >
> > > Importune on them to feed you as large a collection of ham and
> > > spam as they can, once. Then turn on autolearn, cross your
> > > fingers, and put on your flack jacket.
> >
> > What flack jacket? I have Bayes
From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Michael Monnerie wrote:
> > On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 16:18 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > > I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users
> > > don't bother to train it.
> >
> > Another reason for site-wid
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2006 17:27 Bowie Bailey wrote:
So you are saying that I should not feed Bayes with the unsolicited
marketing garbage that I get because it looks like something that
could have been requested?
Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2006 17:27 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > So you are saying that I should not feed Bayes with the unsolicited
> > marketing garbage that I get because it looks like something that
> > could have been requested?
>
> If it's a newsletter from a seemingly legit
On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2006 17:27 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> So you are saying that I should not feed Bayes with the unsolicited
> marketing garbage that I get because it looks like something that
> could have been requested?
If it's a newsletter from a seemingly legit company I don't feed it to
bayes.
jdow wrote:
> From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Michael Monnerie wrote:
> > > On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 16:18 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > > > I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users
> > > > don't bother to train it.
> > >
> > > Another reason for site-wide bayes, I'd say.
> >
> > I'
Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 23:01 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > Hmm... If you are training Bayes, and all of your ham is in English,
> > then what does Bayes do with the Chinese ham your customers get?
>
> Nothing. But you won't get a SPAM report from bayes if the e-mail is
> chin
From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 16:18 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users
> don't bother to train it.
Another reason for site-wide bayes, I'd say.
I've considered that, but it won't work in our setup. T
From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
> > > >
> > > > RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES
> > > >%OFMAIL %OFSPA
On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 23:01 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Hmm... If you are training Bayes, and all of your ham is in English,
> then what does Bayes do with the Chinese ham your customers get?
Nothing. But you won't get a SPAM report from bayes if the e-mail is
chinese and you never feed chinese lang
Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 17:14 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > I've considered that, but it won't work in our setup. This box
> > scans our internal email as well as all of our customer's email.
> > Since we are in an entirely different line of business from our
> > customers, wh
Hello Rick,
Monday, May 8, 2006, 4:07:53 PM, you wrote:
> Interesting, my Razor stats show a MUCH higher false positive rate, so
> much so that I had to lower the scores dramatically.
> Spam Ham
> 1 RAZOR2_CHECK 9744
"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on
05/09/2006 10:27:27 AM:
> | > Holy spoo! Bayes can do MUCH better than that!
> | > {O.O}
> |
> | I'm sure it can, but I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users
> | don't bother to train it.
> |
>
> I'm in a similar situation as Bowie. I had to turn of Baye
Title: RE: Latest sa-stats from last week
> | > I'm in a similar situation as Bowie. I had to turn of Bayes
> | > as mail that was obviously spam was getting a Bayes_0 pulling
> | > the # back down under the threshold.
> | >
> |
> | so why not just s
| > I'm in a similar situation as Bowie. I had to turn of Bayes
| > as mail that was obviously spam was getting a Bayes_0 pulling
| > the # back down under the threshold.
| >
|
| so why not just score BAYES_00, BAYES_20, etc all at at 0... and keep
| BAYES_99, BAYES_95, etc scoring what they s
> -Original Message-
> From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:27
> To: Bowie Bailey; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Latest sa-stats from last week
>
> | > Holy spoo! Bayes can do MUCH better than that!
> | > {O.O
| > Holy spoo! Bayes can do MUCH better than that!
| > {O.O}
|
| I'm sure it can, but I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users
| don't bother to train it.
|
I'm in a similar situation as Bowie. I had to turn of Bayes as mail that was
obviously spam was
getting a Bayes_0 pulling the # back do
Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 16:18 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users
> > don't bother to train it.
>
> Another reason for site-wide bayes, I'd say.
I've considered that, but it won't work in our setup. This box scans
our internal email as
On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 16:18 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users
> don't bother to train it.
Another reason for site-wide bayes, I'd say.
mfg zmi
--
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc- http://it-management.at
// Tel: 0660/4156531 .
jdow wrote:
> From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > wrote:
> > > > > TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
> > > > >
> > > > > RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES
> > > > >%OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
> > > > > ---
On Montag, 8. Mai 2006 21:52 Mike Jackson wrote:
> DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE
> but to have your #1 *ham* rule be one
> that's supposed to identify *spam* doesn't speak well for the rule
Isn't the intention of RFC_ABUSE to list any site that abuses RFC? So
you can't really believe that it wants to identi
From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
> >
> > RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL
> > %OFSPAM %OFHAM
> >--
From: "Dallas Engelken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-Original Message-
From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 14:07
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Latest sa-stats from last week
Email: 561313 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 6.77
AvgSca
Mike Jackson wrote:
>> TOP HAM RULES FIRED
>>
>> RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM
>> %OFHAM
>>
>> 1DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 88
Dallas Engelken wrote:
>
> thanks, i think. ;)
YW.
>
> our fp ratio for ham has always been hanging at that level. i think thats a
> good sign. it means the data in our zones that are causing those ham hits
> have not changed, and no one has notified us that they need removal.
> doesnt worry
al Message -
From: "Mike Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: Latest sa-stats from last week
| > TOP HAM RULES FIRED
| >
| > RANKRULE NAME COUNT
| > TOP HAM RULES FIRED
| >
| > RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM
| > %OFHAM
| >
| > 1DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 8894313.50
Title: RE: Latest sa-stats from last week
> URIBL has the highest spam hit rate, but you nonspam hit-rate
> is more than 5
> times that of JP, your closest competitor in the world of uridnsbl's.
>
> 1 URIBL_BLACK 163397 7.09
> 29.11
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 14:50
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Latest sa-stats from last week
>
> Dallas Engelken wrote:
> >> -Orig
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 03:57:05PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
For more information, here's the results of last week's net mass-check run
(net results should be "live"):
Oh, I meant to add in Razor results since someone mentioned them as well:
MSECSSPAM% HAM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Net tests also seem to have a big impact here, but BAYES still rocks on
a small (3-user) install...
I Note that URIBL_(?:BLACK|SBL), RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET, HTML_MESSAGE
are hitting some fair ham though. FORGED_RCVD_HELO is an artefact of
bigfoot; L_MI
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 03:57:05PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> For more information, here's the results of last week's net mass-check run
> (net results should be "live"):
Oh, I meant to add in Razor results since someone mentioned them as well:
MSECSSPAM% HAM% S/ORANK SCO
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 03:50:23PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> This isn't to say that URIBL_BLACK isn't useful, or that you guys aren't
> doing a
> good job. However, this is good evidence you guys are doing great, but you do
> still have some areas that could use improvement.
>
> (Although clea
TOP HAM RULES FIRED
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM
%OFHAM
1DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 8894313.50 15.85 12.68
25.27
Dallas Engelken wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 14:07
>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Subject: Latest sa-stats from last week
>>
>> Email: 561313 Autolearn: 0 Av
wrote:
> > > TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
> > >
> > > RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL
> > > %OFSPAM %OFHAM
> > > 1
> > > URIBL_BLACK
| > TOP SPAM RULES FIRED
| >
| > RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES
| > %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
| >
| >1URIBL_BLACK 1633977
> -Original Message-
> From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 14:07
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Latest sa-stats from last week
>
> Email: 561313 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 6.77
> AvgScanTime: 2.41 sec
>
Email: 561313 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 6.77 AvgScanTime: 2.41 sec
Spam:209359 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 16.99 AvgScanTime: 2.30 sec
Ham: 351954 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 0.70 AvgScanTime: 2.48 sec
Time Spent Running SA: 376.39 hours
Time Spent Processing Spam:
39 matches
Mail list logo
