On 10/9/2014 9:40 AM, Axb wrote:
On 10/09/2014 03:30 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 10/8/2014 5:03 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/08/2014 10:48 PM, Robert A. Ober wrote:
On 9/22/14 4:20 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:11:44 -0500
Robert A. Ober wrote:
*Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules
On 10/09/2014 03:30 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 10/8/2014 5:03 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/08/2014 10:48 PM, Robert A. Ober wrote:
On 9/22/14 4:20 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:11:44 -0500
Robert A. Ober wrote:
*Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
What score
On 10/8/2014 5:03 PM, Axb wrote:
On 10/08/2014 10:48 PM, Robert A. Ober wrote:
On 9/22/14 4:20 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:11:44 -0500
Robert A. Ober wrote:
*Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
What score does it have?
Could it be that the score go
On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 15:48 -0500, Robert A. Ober wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:11:44 -0500 Robert A. Ober wrote:
> > > *Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
> What is the easiest way to know what score is applied per rule? Neither
> the server log nor the hea
On 10/08/2014 10:48 PM, Robert A. Ober wrote:
On 9/22/14 4:20 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:11:44 -0500
Robert A. Ober wrote:
*Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
What score does it have?
Could it be that the score got set after spamd was restarted?
On 9/22/14 4:20 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:11:44 -0500
Robert A. Ober wrote:
*Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
What score does it have?
Could it be that the score got set after spamd was restarted?
__
What is the
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:11:44 -0500
Robert A. Ober wrote:
> *Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
What score does it have?
Could it be that the score got set after spamd was restarted?
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 9/22/2014 4:11 PM, Robert A. Ober wrote:
header SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION Subject =~ /\bNotification\b/i
score SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION 3.0
*Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
Double-check your rule and score
On 9/22/2014 4:11 PM, Robert A. Ober wrote:
header SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION Subject =~ /\bNotification\b/i
score SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION 3.0
*Yes, my test messages and SPAM hit the rules but ignore the score.*
Double-check your rule and score lines for any minor typos --
particularly
On 9/22/14, 12:56 PM, Alex Regan wrote:
This working elsewhere for me but on my own server the score for the
rules I wrote are being ignored. Example rule:
header SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION Subject =~ /\bNotification\b/i
score SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION 3.0
Spamd uses the rule but does not ap
This working elsewhere for me but on my own server the score for the
rules I wrote are being ignored. Example rule:
header SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION Subject =~ /\bNotification\b/i
score SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION 3.0
Spamd uses the rule but does not apply the score. I am on 3.3.2 on
Mageia 3
*Hello Folks,
This working elsewhere for me but on my own server the score for the
rules I wrote are being ignored. Example rule:
header SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION Subject =~ /\bNotification\b/i
score SUBJECT_NOTIFICATION 3.0
Spamd uses the rule but does not apply the score. I am on 3.
What output does the command "sa-learn --dump magic" produce?
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
0.000 0 1872 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 9184 0 non-token data: nham
On 19.04.13 07:41, John Hardin wrote:
Generally you want the ra
>>> On 4/19/2013 at 10:41 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>
>>> What output does the command "sa-learn --dump magic" produce?
>>
>> 0.000 0 1872 0 non-token data: nspam
>> 0.000 0 9184 0 non-token data: nham
>
Joe Acquisto-j4 skrev den 2013-04-19 13:10:
0.000 0 1872 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 9184 0 non-token data: nham
any use of whitelist_from ?
score whitelist_from 0.001
why ?, whitelist_from can be forged, and will poison bayes if not
car
On 4/19/2013 7:10 AM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 1872 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 9184 0 non-token data: nham
0.000 0 140303 0 non-token data:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
What output does the command "sa-learn --dump magic" produce?
0.000 0 1872 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 9184 0 non-token data: nham
Generally you want the ratio of trained messages to reflect the
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
On 18.04.13 21:45, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
All I can do is feed it.
that is what you should do. You need to train on both spam and ham, since
the BAYES filter must know how they differ...
That has always given me pause, as I get very little ham. Go
Niamh Holding 04/19/13 7:11 AM >>>
You only get one ham email a month?
On 19.04.13 09:22, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
That's all *I* seem to get. Other users may differ, but I have them
instructions on how to forward stuff for training.
This is a rather small system compared to what many of y
That's all *I* seem to get. Other users may differ, but I have them
instructions on how
to forward stuff for training.
This is a rather small system compared to what many of you deal with.
joe a.
>>> Niamh Holding 04/19/13 7:11 AM >>>
Hello Joe,
Friday, April 19, 2013, 12:02:32 PM, you wro
On 4/19/2013 at 6:29 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
that is what you should do. You need to train on both spam and ham, since
the BAYES filter must know how they differ...
On 19.04.13 07:02, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
That has always given me pause, as I get very little ham. Got one this AM.
>>> On 4/19/2013 at 6:35 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 4/19/2013 at 12:06 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> BAYES_50 is the bayes classifier's way of saying "insufficient data" or "I
>>> don't know".
>>>
>>> Do you really want to assign 3 points for "I don't know"?
>
> On 19.04.13 06:09, J
Hello Joe,
Friday, April 19, 2013, 12:02:32 PM, you wrote:
JAj> That has always given me pause, as I get very little ham. Got one this
AM. which I will feed
JAj> but that's the first in at least a month.
You only get one ham email a month?
--
Best regards,
Niamh
>>> On 4/19/2013 at 6:29 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 4/18/2013 at 7:21 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> Train your bayes database, if you get many spams with this small score.
>
> On 18.04.13 21:45, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>>All I can do is feed it.
>
> that is what you shoul
On 4/19/2013 at 12:06 AM, John Hardin wrote:
BAYES_50 is the bayes classifier's way of saying "insufficient data" or "I
don't know".
Do you really want to assign 3 points for "I don't know"?
On 19.04.13 06:09, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
In this case, from the samples I've seen. Absolutely, yes
On 4/18/2013 at 7:21 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Train your bayes database, if you get many spams with this small score.
On 18.04.13 21:45, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
All I can do is feed it.
that is what you should do. You need to train on both spam and ham, since
the BAYES filter must k
>>> On 4/19/2013 at 12:06 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>
> On 4/18/2013 at 7:21 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> On 18.04.13 06:45, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
I was concerned about this:
[score: 0.4968]
>>>
>>> This meant that BAYES has
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
On 4/18/2013 at 7:21 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 18.04.13 06:45, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
I was concerned about this:
[score: 0.4968]
This meant that BAYES has computer 49.56% probability that the mail is spam
and the rest (50.44%) that it
On 2013-04-18 19:45, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
DO NOT play with BAYES_50 score.
? What can it hurt?
It can cause significant false positives, since BAYES_50 indicates at
the there's a 50% chance that this message isn't spam.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/da
>>> On 4/18/2013 at 7:21 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 18.04.13 06:45, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>>I was concerned about this:
>>
>> [score: 0.4968]
>
> This meant that BAYES has computer 49.56% probability that the mail is spam
> and the rest (50.44%) that it is HAM.
ok
> Train your baye
On 18.04.13 06:45, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
I was concerned about this:
[score: 0.4968]
This meant that BAYES has computer 49.56% probability that the mail is spam
and the rest (50.44%) that it is HAM.
Train your bayes database, if you get many spams with this small score.
DO NOT play with BAY
18.04.2013 13:45, Joe Acquisto-j4 kirjoitti:
On 4/18/2013 at 6:38 AM, Axb wrote:
>> On 04/18/2013 12:23 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>> On 4/18/2013 at 6:15 AM, Axb wrote:
On 04/18/2013 12:11 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> I'm missing something.
>
> Find a fair amount of mis
>>> On 4/18/2013 at 6:38 AM, Axb wrote:
> On 04/18/2013 12:23 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> On 4/18/2013 at 6:15 AM, Axb wrote:
>>> On 04/18/2013 12:11 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
I'm missing something.
Find a fair amount of missed SPAM showing, among others:
* 0.8 BAY
On 04/18/2013 12:23 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
On 4/18/2013 at 6:15 AM, Axb wrote:
On 04/18/2013 12:11 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
I'm missing something.
Find a fair amount of missed SPAM showing, among others:
* 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% *
[score: 0.4968]
Bayes
>>> On 4/18/2013 at 6:15 AM, Axb wrote:
> On 04/18/2013 12:11 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>> I'm missing something.
>>
>> Find a fair amount of missed SPAM showing, among others:
>>
>> * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% *
>> [score: 0.4968]
>>
>> Bayes is way too low, in my H
On 04/18/2013 12:11 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
I'm missing something.
Find a fair amount of missed SPAM showing, among others:
* 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% *
[score: 0.4968]
Bayes is way too low, in my HO.
it's obviously not learning enough of whatever it's not s
I'm missing something.
Find a fair amount of missed SPAM showing, among others:
* 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
* [score: 0.4968]
Bayes is way too low, in my HO. I am puzzled by the line after it.
I set local.cf with: score BAYES_50_BODY 3.
37 matches
Mail list logo
