On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> David Brodbeck wrote:
> > Loren Wilton wrote:
> >> You'ld think that there should be some way to do a reverse DNS to
> >> determine from an ip the domains that exist on that ip. I suspect
> >> though that the whole internet fabric is designed the othe
David Brodbeck wrote:
> Loren Wilton wrote:
>> You'ld think that there should be some way to do a reverse DNS to
>> determine from an ip the domains that exist on that ip. I suspect
>> though that the whole internet fabric is designed the other way
>> around, and that this information is probably
Loren Wilton wrote:
You'ld think that there should be some way to do a reverse DNS to determine
from an ip the domains that exist on that ip. I suspect though that the
whole internet fabric is designed the other way around, and that this
information is probably something that no single registrar
> How exactly do we determine what other sites are hosted on a
> given server, i.e., sites that don't appear in spams? IOW
> how do you know there's "one internal site"?
You'ld think that there should be some way to do a reverse DNS to determine
from an ip the domains that exist on that ip. I su
On Saturday, June 4, 2005, 6:20:11 AM, jdow jdow wrote:
> One tiny quibble. For each machine blocked there is perhaps one whole
> internal site that is blocked as well. But it means that site is
> throwing spam out to the universe and the company doing it or the
> individual doing it should stop th
>> >[previous stuff snipped]
>> >Loren
>>
>> Loren is correct. And Jeff and I have had this conversation many times.
>Jeff
>> would rather not risk the FPs by doing it. I can see his point. But I
>agree
>> with Loren that we have IPs that are pure spam.
>
>One tiny quibble. For each
From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >>> If that statement is true, perhaps the surbl lists could
> >automatically
> >>> include the dotquads for hosts that are known to be
> >pure spam sources and
> >
On Friday, June 3, 2005, 3:47:05 AM, Loren Wilton wrote:
>>> If that statement is true, perhaps the surbl lists could automatically
>>> include the dotquads for hosts that are known to be pure spam
>>> sources and
>>> not mixed systems. Then the client could get the ip for a suspect hostn
List Mail User wrote:
And adding a URI rule for the completewhois list (basically the same
function as the no longer existing ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org list) will hit
yet more name servers and spammer IPs with slightly fewer FPs (no issue with
escalations). The list is: combined-HIB.dnsi
>...
>
>On Friday, June 3, 2005, 12:33:26 AM, Duncan Hill wrote:
>> On Friday 03 June 2005 08:10, Loren Wilton typed:
>>> It was basically "the spammer makes a zillion new domains, and they all
>>> take time to get into SURBL, so some spam gets through. But they all point
>>> to the same dotted qu
>-Original Message-
>From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 6:47 AM
>To: Duncan Hill; users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Is Bayes Really Necessary?
>
>
>>> If that statement is true, perhaps the surbl lists could
>> If that statement is true, perhaps the surbl lists could automatically
>> include the dotquads for hosts that are known to be pure spam
>> sources and
>> not mixed systems. Then the client could get the ip for a suspect hostname
>> and see if it matched a known spam dotquad.
> I'd swe
On Friday, June 3, 2005, 12:33:26 AM, Duncan Hill wrote:
> On Friday 03 June 2005 08:10, Loren Wilton typed:
>> It was basically "the spammer makes a zillion new domains, and they all
>> take time to get into SURBL, so some spam gets through. But they all point
>> to the same dotted quad, and I ca
On Friday 03 June 2005 08:10, Loren Wilton typed:
> It was basically "the spammer makes a zillion new domains, and they all
> take time to get into SURBL, so some spam gets through. But they all point
> to the same dotted quad, and I can match on that lookup".
>
> If that statement is true, perhap
> SURBLs on the other hand have mostly domain names with a few IPs.
> Whatever appears in URI host portions is what goes into SURBLs.
> Usually URIs have domain names so that's what most of the SURBL
> records are.
Jeff, the OP (or someone) had an interesting idea, I thought.
It was basically "th
On Thursday, May 26, 2005, 12:49:05 PM, Evan Langlois wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 10:42 -0400, Chris Santerre wrote:
>> For site wide, I'm pretty much against it. I know people will argue that
>> point. I'm obviously biased towards SARE rules updated with RDJ. And the use
>> of URIBL.com lists.
>-Original Message-
>From: Jake Colman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 9:47 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Is Bayes Really Necessary?
>
>
>
>OK. I misunderstood. The URIBLS are working fine.
>Interestingly, alth
OK. I misunderstood. The URIBLS are working fine. Interestingly, although
I use the SARE rules and URIBLS, some spam is still slipping through. This
spam is fairly obvious spam some I am a bit surprised. Should I be tweaking
the scoring?
> "MK" == Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
From: "David B Funk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As spammers are constantly mutating and adapting, having a dynamic,
> adaptive component of SA is a must to avoid the "saw-tooth" effect.
> (a fresh SA install works great, gradually loses effectiveness until a
> new update install, and so on).
Um, yeah,
From: "Jim Maul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Gotta stop smokin the green ;)
Yeah, it's better if you shovel the random greens you find into the
compost pit. Not many people will look for them in a compost pit when
they get reported as missing persons.
{O,o}
From: "List Mail User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Though nobody seems to have said it exactly this way: It seems
> to be becoming very obvious that the people who say the have problems
> with Bayes are those who support a diverse group of users (e.g. ISPs
> and email providers) and those who find it w
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Sneaky one you are - you got around my Reply-To markup for this list. For
that you get an extra copy. {^_-})
> jdow wrote:
> > One way to keep Bayes from running is to never train it.
> > {^_^}
>
> You'd also disable autolearning. By default SA will eventu
Jake Colman wrote:
>>"CS" == Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>CS> If you are using SA 3.x, support is already included. You simply have
>CS> to create the config file, restart spamd, and *poof* way less spam.
>
>CS> Net::Dns is required. I forget which version. I forg
> "CS" == Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I already use RDJ and the automatic updater. How do I use URIBL? I
>> looked at the usage page and I undersyand that I need to create a .cf
>> file but how does it access the lists?
CS> If you are using SA 3.x, support is a
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 10:08 -0400, Jake Colman wrote:
> > Given the rather complete set of rules that ship with SA and which can
> > expanded with SARE, does bayes learning really help? Won't the rules catch
> > pretty much everything anyway?
>
> I hav
On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 10:42 -0400, Chris Santerre wrote:
> For site wide, I'm pretty much against it. I know people will argue that
> point. I'm obviously biased towards SARE rules updated with RDJ. And the use
> of URIBL.com lists. But these allow a general users, or a sitewide install
> to "set
Chris Santerre wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jake Colman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 2:54 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is Bayes Really Necessary?
"CS" == Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>-Original Message-
>From: Jake Colman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 2:54 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Is Bayes Really Necessary?
>
>
>>>>>> "CS" == Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "CS" == Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jake Colman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 10:09 AM
>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Subject: Is Bayes Really Necessary?
>>
>>
>>
>> Given
On Thursday May 26 2005 1:13 pm, Loren Wilton wrote:
> > Given the rather complete set of rules that ship with SA and which can
> > expanded with SARE, does bayes learning really help? Won't the rules
>
> catch
>
> > pretty much everything anyway?
>
> Um, maybe, maybe not.
>
> Bayes *necessary*?
> Given the rather complete set of rules that ship with SA and which can
> expanded with SARE, does bayes learning really help? Won't the rules
catch
> pretty much everything anyway?
Um, maybe, maybe not.
Bayes *necessary*? No, especially if you run net tests.
Bayes *highly desirable*? Yup. A
Though nobody seems to have said it exactly this way: It seems
to be becoming very obvious that the people who say the have problems
with Bayes are those who support a diverse group of users (e.g. ISPs
and email providers) and those who find it works well, even with autolearning
are those
On 5/26/2005 10:08 AM, Jake Colman wrote:
> Given the rather complete set of rules that ship with SA and which can
> expanded with SARE, does bayes learning really help? Won't the rules catch
> pretty much everything anyway?
The base SA install is insufficient, but if you tweak the scores and ad
Matt Kettler wrote:
jdow wrote:
One way to keep Bayes from running is to never train it.
{^_^}
You'd also disable autolearning. By default SA will eventually autolearn enough
email to being using bayes. (and often these pure auto-learn only DBs end up
with very bad results.)
Often is the
jdow wrote:
> One way to keep Bayes from running is to never train it.
> {^_^}
You'd also disable autolearning. By default SA will eventually autolearn enough
email to being using bayes. (and often these pure auto-learn only DBs end up
with very bad results.)
One way to keep Bayes from running is to never train it.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Kristopher Austin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We have found Bayes to be more trouble than it's worth. We were
frequently running into problems keeping the database stable and fresh.
We have a site-wide i
* Jim Maul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have been running sitewide bayes since the beginning without much
> maintenance at all. It has autolearned every message itself and its
> dead on balls accurate. I've trained maybe 20 message total manually so
> i dont see how running bayes could actually c
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Kristopher Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
We have found Bayes to be more trouble than it's worth. We were
frequently running into problems keeping the database stable and fresh.
We have a site-wide install so that just made it all the more
problematic.
We also have a
Joe Zitnik wrote:
Bayes definitely helps, but auto-learn can cause problems. Perhaps a
better question would be, "Is autolearn really neccessary?"
I think the problems mostly come from accidentally autolearning spam as
ham, which is easy with the default threshold. Autolearning messages as
I have autolearn off. I have been burned by it twice.>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5/26/2005 10:33 AM >>>
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Joe Zitnik wrote:> I think points can be made for both sides of the argument. The thing> that makes bayes different, is that a well trained bayes database is> specific to your
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Joe Zitnik wrote:
> I think points can be made for both sides of the argument. The thing
> that makes bayes different, is that a well trained bayes database is
> specific to your environment. If you're a law firm, your learned ham is
> going to be heavy in legalese, medical
>-Original Message-
>From: Jake Colman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 10:09 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Is Bayes Really Necessary?
>
>
>
>Given the rather complete set of rules that ship with SA and which can
>expanded with SARE, does bayes lea
I think points can be made for both sides of the argument. The thing that makes bayes different, is that a well trained bayes database is specific to your environment. If you're a law firm, your learned ham is going to be heavy in legalese, medical related org, heavy in that terminology. Becaus
* Kristopher Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> We have found Bayes to be more trouble than it's worth. We were
> frequently running into problems keeping the database stable and fresh.
> We have a site-wide install so that just made it all the more
> problematic.
We also have a site-wide install with
On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 10:08 -0400, Jake Colman wrote:
> Given the rather complete set of rules that ship with SA and which can
> expanded with SARE, does bayes learning really help? Won't the rules catch
> pretty much everything anyway?
I have used SA with Bayes and it took quite a bit of adminis
We have found Bayes to be more trouble than it's worth. We were
frequently running into problems keeping the database stable and fresh.
We have a site-wide install so that just made it all the more
problematic.
It definitely depends on your situation. I don't think anyone can make
a blanket stat
Yes, BAYES is an integral part of SA!
It's like a constantly changing rule (without the need to tweak the rule
ever so slightly for nuances in the "new" mail.
There are mails that don't trip any standard rules, but are caught by
bayes alone.
Steven
-Original Message-
From: Jake Colman [
47 matches
Mail list logo
