://www.nabble.com/Shortcurcuit-scoring-problem-%283.2.5%29-tp19414806p19513260.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Sat, 2008-09-13 at 03:13 +0200, Felix Buenemann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm experiencing the exact same problem with 3.2.3, y "fix" was simply
> to manually specify the spam score:
>
> # adjust for high efficiency rules
> score URIBL_BLACK 50
> score URIBL_JP_SURBL 50
> score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET
Hi,
I'm experiencing the exact same problem with 3.2.3, y "fix" was simply
to manually specify the spam score:
# adjust for high efficiency rules
score URIBL_BLACK 50
score URIBL_JP_SURBL 50
score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 50
score RAZOR2_CHECK 50
score BAYES_99 50
# short circuit high efficiency
rtcircuit_ham_score 100" explicitly, but this did not help - result was
the same - looks like these options do not work at all.
Ok, I think, it is possible to change bayes_99 score in appropriate file,
but, I think, this will not be correct.
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://www
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 14:02 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 07:43 -0400, Munroe Sollog wrote:
> > updates.spamassassin.org
> > 70_sare_stocks.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net
> [ snip ]
>
> $ ls *.cf /var/lib/spamassassin/3.002005/
Err, whoops. Of course, make that
$ ls
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 07:43 -0400, Munroe Sollog wrote:
> I am using sa-update for the stock rules. I run:
>
> sa-update -D --channelfile /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-channels.txt
> --gpgkey 856AA88A
>
> where sa-update-channels.txt contains:
>
> updates.spamassassin.org
> 70_sare_stocks.cf
Here is the -t output
http://www.pastebin.ca/1185205
Munroe Sollog
Systems Engineer
Digirati Consulting, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Proulx wrote:
> Munroe Sollog wrote:
>
>> I'm not quite sure I understand what is happening here:
>>
>> http://www.pastebin.ca/1184943
>>
>> it looks like the
I am using sa-update for the stock rules. I run:
sa-update -D --channelfile /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-update-channels.txt
--gpgkey 856AA88A
where sa-update-channels.txt contains:
updates.spamassassin.org
70_sare_stocks.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net
70_sare_genlsubj0.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.ne
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 00:34 -0400, Munroe Sollog wrote:
> I'm not quite sure I understand what is happening here:
>
> http://www.pastebin.ca/1184943
>
> it looks like the message is triggering rules but in the end it is
> getting '0' points
See the very last two lines. They mention the rules hit
Munroe Sollog wrote:
> I'm not quite sure I understand what is happening here:
>
> http://www.pastebin.ca/1184943
>
> it looks like the message is triggering rules but in the end it is
> getting '0' points
Can you run the message through 'spamassassin -t -D' to get a full
summary report? (See '
I'm not quite sure I understand what is happening here:
http://www.pastebin.ca/1184943
it looks like the message is triggering rules but in the end it is
getting '0' points
--
Munroe Sollog
Systems Engineer
Digirati Consulting, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert - elists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you use greylisting at all?
I do and it works well. This is not to dispute Michael's claim about
"smarter" botnets; just offering another experience.
> If we may know, what other pre pipe to SA tool
now...
spammers have programmed their 'botnets' to send out duplicate spam in 15
min intervals.
all greylisting does is slow things down.
for per user, look at amavisd-new
--
Michael Scheidell, President
Michael
Do you use greylisting at all?
If we may know, what other pre pipe t
Brent Kennedy wrote:
As far as I know, I cant set per user rules. I run postfix piped to
spamassassin then to an exchange server. I was thinking more along
the lines of a database which applies a rule based on a recipient
algorithm.
Yesterday I turned on SQLGrey and saw the spam level drop
ROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 3:38 PM
To: Brent Kennedy; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Receiver Based Spam Scoring
So, the more pissed off a user is that his email is getting blocked, the
more you want to block?
I SORTA understand the (mis-understanding) that recipient b
So, the more pissed off a user is that his email is getting blocked, the
more you want to block?
I SORTA understand the (mis-understanding) that recipient based reputation
filtering can do, why not just use a daily (nightly) adjustment of user
based policies, see something like amavisd-new. Set n
Is there a Linux based equivalent to the abaca system of using spam scores
of people who get the most spam and then judging emails based on that
aggregate number?
Brent Kennedy, MCSE, MCDBA, Linux+
Web Developer/Networking and Systems Engineer
all the logs for Postfix, amavisd-new, and spamassassin, and
>> > cannot see any errors or warnings, but Spamassassin just passes all
>> messages
>> > now without giving a score or a score of 0.
>
> --
> Daniel J McDonald, CCIE #2495, CISSP #78281, CNX
> Austin Energy
> http://www.austinenergy.com
>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/SA-no-longer-scoring-tp18093900p18098572.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 10:41 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
> Example headers?
>
> Output of spamassassin --lint ?
>
Since he's running amavisd-new, running `amavisd -c blah.conf debug-sa`
would probably provide the most information...
> mmedlin99 wrote:
> > Running SA version 3.2.4
> > amavisd-new
Example headers?
Output of spamassassin --lint ?
mmedlin99 wrote:
Running SA version 3.2.4
amavisd-new version 2.2.1
Postfix version 2.5.2
Upgraded postfix from version 2.1.x to 2.5.2 just a few hours ago.
Now Spamassassin is giving everything a score of 0, even the obvious spam.
Worked properl
in context:
http://www.nabble.com/SA-no-longer-scoring-tp18093900p18093900.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Robert - elists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Threshold?
Yes, threshold.
> Huh?
What is so confusing?
> You are joking right?
No.
> The default SA scoring spam tagging threshold is half that...
Exactly. That is why I said it does seem high (in this case, assuming the
>
> Seems high to me, but needs to be put in the context of your threshold.
>
> --
> Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Threshold?
Huh?
You are joking right?
The default SA scoring spam tagging threshold is half that...
:-)
- rh
Robert - elists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone think that
>
>10 FM_BIG_REASON Lot's of CAP words, BIG, REASON, BEST
>
> Is scored high or?
Seems high to me, but needs to be put in the context of your threshold.
--
Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Does anyone think that
10 FM_BIG_REASON Lot's of CAP words, BIG, REASON, BEST
Is scored high or?
- rh
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Jeff Aitken wrote:
I'm thinking you're probably right that this is a timing issue. I just
checked another message that had different scoring results. The initial
message was received on 5/15 at 1156UTC and did not hit URIBL_BLACK. I
fed it to SA manually at 1
ples that I've
found so far are also (properly) identified as spam.
I'm thinking you're probably right that this is a timing issue. I just
checked another message that had different scoring results. The initial
message was received on 5/15 at 1156UTC and did not hit URIBL_BLACK. I
f
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 16:20 +, Jeff Aitken wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:35:52PM +0200, Karsten Br?ckelmann wrote:
> > Do you see hits URIBL_BLACK hits in the incoming stream at all?
>
> Not sure exactly what you're asking here... but I included the entire
> X-Spam-Status and X-Spam-Rep
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:35:52PM +0200, Karsten Br?ckelmann wrote:
> No DNSBLs in the original result... This *may* be due to the BLs
> catching up, and the second run being done later. This specifically
> seems to be the case for Razor (which hit in both run, just differently)
> and likely for U
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 14:19 +, Jeff Aitken wrote:
> For example, a message that was just delivered to my inbox contained the
> following report from SA:
>
> X-Spam-Report:
> * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
> * [score: 1.]
>
s like a lot more spam has been getting through in the last couple
of weeks. This prompted me to enable Pyzor, which I had not done in my
initial install. While that seems to work, I noticed that I'm getting
inconsistent scoring results on messages that should be tagged as spam but
which are
> -Original Message-
> From: Kelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 11 April 2008 11:20 a.m.
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: DNS Blocklists with Spamassassin (scoring only)
>
> Michael Hutchinson wrote:
> > uridnsbl URIBL_DSBL li
Michael Hutchinson wrote:
uridnsbl URIBL_DSBL list.dsbl.org. TXT
body URIBL_DSBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_DSBL')
describe URIBL_DSBL Contains a URL listed in the DSBL blocklist
(http://dsbl.org)
scoreURIBL_DSBL 0.004
Wait... does the DSBL even list URIs? I thought it only lis
Hi Everyone,
I've been floating around on the web, looking for some specifics to do
with setting up a DNS Block List for scoring in Spamassassin.
I found the setup for the CBL, and copied that for use with the DSBL,
which is what I want to setup for scoring Spam. Strangely enough, a l
> > don't modify "standard" rule files.
> >
> > instead, create a /path/to/site/rules/scores.cf (same directory where
> > you have local.cf) and override the scores there (use a 0 score to
> > disable a test). look at 50_scores.cf to get an idea.
> >
> > I hope you have valid reasons to disable
| grep -v URIBL | awk '{print
"score " $2 " 0"}' > scores.cf
should do (MAPS is already disabled in the default config).
Once I know that, then I can search out all the scoring issues and zero them
out in local.cf or something that would not get overwritten on update.
Thanks
- rh
>
> You probably know this, but make sure you put the zeroed-out scores in
> your local config dir (i.e. /etc/mail/spamassassin or the like) so that
> they won't be overwritten the next time you upgrade and/or run sa-update.
>
> --
> Kelson Vibber
> SpeedGate Communications
Kelson
Thanks, I h
ere.
I just need to know where all the dns RBL tests are and if they are just in
one file, or many.
It appears just one file.
Once I know that, then I can search out all the scoring issues and zero them
out in local.cf or something that would not get overwritten on update.
Thanks
- rh
ither
way, I believe all the default scores are in 50_scores.cf.
I want to change this to 0 (i.e. enabling dnsbl checks) and zero out any
default SA DNSBL type scoring, and then enable only one internal/external
DNSBL check source of our choice for testing...
You probably know this, but make
the other files to check for where the scores are, or
is there only one default score file on this?
Whice one(s) please?
We currently have the skip_rbl_checks = 1 in local.cf
I want to change this to 0 (i.e. enabling dnsbl checks) and zero out any
default SA DNSBL type scoring, and then enabl
for where the scores are, or
is there only one default score file on this?
Whice one(s) please?
We currently have the skip_rbl_checks = 1 in local.cf
I want to change this to 0 (i.e. enabling dnsbl checks) and zero out any
default SA DNSBL type scoring, and then enable only one internal/external
D
Thanks - that worked!!
At 07:08 PM 3/30/2008, Matt Kettler wrote:
Jeff Koch wrote:
Hi Matt:
Thanks for answering. However neither 'add_header all Report_REPORT_' or
'add_header all' seem to be valid SA commands per 'lint'
You're missing a space between "Report" and "_REPORT_", which appa
Jeff Koch wrote:
Hi Matt:
Thanks for answering. However neither 'add_header all Report_REPORT_'
or 'add_header all' seem to be valid SA commands per 'lint'
You're missing a space between "Report" and "_REPORT_", which apparently
I missed in my post.
My bad, it should be:
add_header all Re
;, skipping: add_header all
[27883] warn: config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, "all
Report_REPORT_" is not valid for "add_header", skipping: add_header all
Report_REPORT_
We already have 'report_safe 0' in the local.cf which according to the
doc's should produc
Hi All,
A user received the spam below. The scoring on it seems very low. Does
it score consistently for others? If not, what rules is it tagging?
Any help gratefully received.
>Received: by blue-canoe.org.uk (MTSPro MTSAgent 1.60.20) ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008
>07:06:43 -
>for
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Andrew Hearn wrote:
http://pastebin.ca/961075
I've only seen one so far but apart from the 0.0 BAYES_50 (I will learn
this message), does anyone have rules that pushes this kind of message
over 5.0?
I have some "stupid HTML tricks" rules for empty tag pairs; adding
Andrew Hearn wrote:
http://pastebin.ca/961075
I've only seen one so far but apart from the 0.0 BAYES_50 (I will
learn this message), does anyone have rules that pushes this kind of
message over 5.0?
thanks!
Andrew
If you learn the message which = 3.5 wouldn't that put the score +5?
Andrew Hearn wrote:
http://pastebin.ca/961075
I've only seen one so far but apart from the 0.0 BAYES_50 (I will
learn this message), does anyone have rules that pushes this kind of
message over 5.0?
thanks!
Andrew
pts rule name description
--
--
http://pastebin.ca/961075
I've only seen one so far but apart from the 0.0 BAYES_50 (I will learn
this message), does anyone have rules that pushes this kind of message
over 5.0?
thanks!
Andrew
Jeff Koch wrote:
We used to get detailed spam scoring in the email headers but it seems
to have disappeared after installing 3.2.4. Is there some command for
turning the detailed scoring back on. Can someone please tell me what
it is?
look at the add_header command. Since 2.6.0 this has been
We used to get detailed spam scoring in the email headers but it seems to
have disappeared after installing 3.2.4. Is there some command for turning
the detailed scoring back on. Can someone please tell me what it is?
Thanks
Best Regards,
Jeff Koch, Intersessions
To:, Cc: or Bcc:
destination
to a specific domain.
Anyone can help me to write correcly the rules ?
can i specify that for -1.3 are for a specifi-domain AND for scoring <
8 ?
Well, first, it will not work for BCC mail, unless your MTA inserts
hints into the Received: header about the act
specific domain.
Anyone can help me to write correcly the rules ?
can i specify that for -1.3 are for a specifi-domain AND for scoring < 8 ?
Thanks for your help
Jpc
amassassin -t <
spamemail > spamemail.out" it will score it appropriately and mark it as
spam.
Again, this happens if the spam email is sent as an HTML message. If the
spam is sent as plain text, I don't notice any problems with the scoring.
Any help and suggestions for things to
On 26.02.08 11:56, Russell Jones wrote:
> For some reason spamd is not scoring email nearly as high as
> spamassassin scores if you run the message through manually. I do not
> understand this, and it is causing spam to get through that should have
> been blocked. As you can see
For some reason spamd is not scoring email nearly as high as
spamassassin scores if you run the message through manually. I do not
understand this, and it is causing spam to get through that should have
been blocked. As you can see when running spamassassin manually it
scored it a 7.5, but
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 10:14 +0100, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
Le Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:57:55 +0100,
Karsten Bräckelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
At 13:51 20-02-2008, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m61564e4
That's not a d
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 10:14 +0100, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
> Le Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:57:55 +0100,
> Karsten Bräckelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > > At 13:51 20-02-2008, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
> > > >http://pastebin.com/m61564e4
> >
> > That's not a default SA header. X-Spam-Checker-Versio
Le Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:57:55 +0100,
Karsten Bräckelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 14:40 -0800, SM wrote:
> > At 13:51 20-02-2008, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
> >
> > >http://pastebin.com/m61564e4
>
> That's not a default SA header. X-Spam-Checker-Version is missing, and
>
Le Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:40:30 -0800,
SM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> At 13:51 20-02-2008, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
>
> >http://pastebin.com/m61564e4
>
> The message hits RDNS_NONE, HTML_MESSAGE, URIBL_WS_SURBL,
> URIBL_JP_SURBL, URIBL_OB_SURBL, URIBL_SC_SURBL, URIBL_BLACK,
> URIBL_RHS_DOB. T
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 14:40 -0800, SM wrote:
> At 13:51 20-02-2008, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
>
> >http://pastebin.com/m61564e4
That's not a default SA header. X-Spam-Checker-Version is missing, and
that X-Spam-Status is missing autolearn and version. Whatever calls SA,
you want to check with that.
At 13:51 20-02-2008, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m61564e4
The message hits RDNS_NONE, HTML_MESSAGE, URIBL_WS_SURBL,
URIBL_JP_SURBL, URIBL_OB_SURBL, URIBL_SC_SURBL, URIBL_BLACK,
URIBL_RHS_DOB. The total score is 12.6.
Are you using SURBL ( http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassi
Le Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:19:06 -0800,
SM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Hi,
> At 08:01 20-02-2008, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
> >Nowadays, I get more and more spam that get these headers :
> >
> >X-Spam-Score: 0
> >X-Spam-Level:
> >X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none]
> >
> >Is it normal
Hi,
At 08:01 20-02-2008, Emmanuel Lesouef wrote:
Nowadays, I get more and more spam that get these headers :
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none]
Is it normal ? How can I make these spams tested ?
It's not normal. Upload a sample of the spam includ
Hi all,
Nowadays, I get more and more spam that get these headers :
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none]
Is it normal ? How can I make these spams tested ?
Thanks.
--
Emmanuel Lesouef
DSI | CRBN
t: 0231069671
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 13:12 -0800, Tim Alberts wrote:
> Thank you again everyone for responding.
>
> I do have the per user settings and it prompts the question that I don't
> see an answer for yet. What happens with the command
> 'spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist' with per user settin
Tim Alberts wrote:
>
> I do have the per user settings and it prompts the question that I
> don't see an answer for yet. What happens with the command
> 'spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist' with per user settings? I
> assumed running the command as root, it would filter down through each
René Berber wrote:
Tim Alberts wrote:
[snip]
OK, I ran the command and just received another email from the
customer today. The mail is still being marked as spam. I need to
fix this now or stop using spamassassin.
To re-iterate the problem. I am receiving mail from a customer and
it is
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:12:59AM -0800, Paul Douglas Franklin wrote:
> use_auto_whitelist 0
Alternately, and the better way, is to disable the AWL plugin. You'll find
the following line in v310.pre (in your site config directory):
loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AWL
comment it out and
Tim Alberts wrote:
[snip]
OK, I ran the command and just received another email from the customer
today. The mail is still being marked as spam. I need to fix this now
or stop using spamassassin.
To re-iterate the problem. I am receiving mail from a customer and it
is being marked as spam
I have
use_auto_whitelist 0
in my local.cf.
awl was causing just too much trouble.
--Paul
Tim Alberts wrote:
Tim Alberts wrote:
Rubin Bennett wrote:
spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist
(Googled for SpamAssassin AWL remove entry)
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AwlWrongWay
Also man
Tim Alberts wrote:
Rubin Bennett wrote:
spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist
(Googled for SpamAssassin AWL remove entry)
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AwlWrongWay
Also man spamassassin should give you some more details about that
command :)
Rubin
yahoo'd - spamassassin auto white
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>
> AWL should be renamed ABL, if it can produce such scores. Must be
> pain.
It is not well named, but think of it as a score balancer. It attempts
to adjust the score towards the average score seen previously for a
sender. If someone who has sent good mail in the past
Tim Alberts wrote:
Thank you for responding Rubin. I disable the AWL with main
spamassassin local.cf config file and the line 'auto_learn 0' correct?
Not quite. If you run "spamassassin --lint" with that directive in
place, you should get an error reported.
Add "use_auto_whitelist 0" to lo
> At 09:45 13-02-2008, Tim Alberts wrote:
>> some (very important) customers and it's really a
>> problem right now. Where is the score 244.3 coming
>> from? The sender is whitelisted for -100?
>> [snip]
>> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=244.3 required=5.0
>> tests=AWL,BAYES_00, USER_IN_WHITELIST auto
At 09:45 13-02-2008, Tim Alberts wrote:
some (very important) customers and it's really a problem right
now. Where is the score 244.3 coming from? The sender is
whitelisted for -100?
[snip]
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=244.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version
Rubin Bennett wrote:
spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist
(Googled for SpamAssassin AWL remove entry)
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AwlWrongWay
Also man spamassassin should give you some more details about that
command :)
Rubin
yahoo'd - spamassassin auto white list clear
Guess t
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 10:15 -0800, Tim Alberts wrote:
> Rubin Bennett wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 09:45 -0800, Tim Alberts wrote:
> >
> >> Greetings everyone. I'm new to the list because I need help
> >> desperately. I've been using spamassassin for many years and it has
> >> gone a lon
Rubin Bennett wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 09:45 -0800, Tim Alberts wrote:
Greetings everyone. I'm new to the list because I need help
desperately. I've been using spamassassin for many years and it has
gone a long way to fixing spam, so first, thank you for the great product.
System is
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 09:45 -0800, Tim Alberts wrote:
> Greetings everyone. I'm new to the list because I need help
> desperately. I've been using spamassassin for many years and it has
> gone a long way to fixing spam, so first, thank you for the great product.
>
> System is Fedora Linux 6 r
Greetings everyone. I'm new to the list because I need help
desperately. I've been using spamassassin for many years and it has
gone a long way to fixing spam, so first, thank you for the great product.
System is Fedora Linux 6 running sendmail. Mail is delivered for local
users with procma
>
> Just wanted to point out, this topic came out when site dns
> cache service started to fail due to excessive dnsbl queries. My
> slowdown was due to multiple timeouts and/or delay, probably
> related to "answering joe-job rbldns backscatter" -- that's the
> reason I was looking for early exit
To clarify -- here's how the current code orders rule evaluation:
- message metadata is extracted.
- header DNSBL tests are started.
- the decoded forms of the body text are extracted and cached.
- the URIs in the message body are extracted and cached.
- Iterates through each known priority l
>>> maybe if there was some way to establish a hierachy at startup
>>> which groups rule processing into nodes. some nodes finish
>>> quickly, some have dependencies, some are negative, etc.
Just wanted to point out, this topic came out when site dns
cache service started to fail due to excessiv
John D. Hardin writes:
Loren mentioned to me in a private email: "common subexpressions".
Whoops! Matt Kettler mentioned it to me, not Loren. Sorry!
I was going to mention that I didn't think that had been me.
Unless I was asleep when I wrote the reply. Which could have been the case.
:-)
REs you know will fail;
>> >>>> but how do you do *that*?
>> >>> thanks for all the followups on my inquiry. I'm glad the topic is/was
>> >>> considered and it looks like there is some room for development, but
>> >>> I now rea
John D. Hardin writes:
>
> Loren mentioned to me in a private email: "common subexpressions".
Whoops! Matt Kettler mentioned it to me, not Loren. Sorry!
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ks for all the followups on my inquiry. I'm glad the topic is/was
> >>> considered and it looks like there is some room for development, but
> >>> I now realize it is not as simple as I thought it might have been.
> >>> In answer to above question, maybe the tests nee
n.
In answer to above question, maybe the tests need their own scoring?
eg fast tests and with big spam scores get a higher test score than
slow tests with low spam scores.
maybe if there was some way to establish a hierachy at startup
which groups rule processing into nodes. some nodes finish
qu
room for development, but
> > I now realize it is not as simple as I thought it might have been.
> > In answer to above question, maybe the tests need their own scoring?
> > eg fast tests and with big spam scores get a higher test score than
> > slow tests with low spam
might have been.
> In answer to above question, maybe the tests need their own scoring?
> eg fast tests and with big spam scores get a higher test score than
> slow tests with low spam scores.
>
> maybe if there was some way to establish a hierachy at startup
> which groups r
n my inquiry. I'm glad the topic is/was
considered and it looks like there is some room for development, but
I now realize it is not as simple as I thought it might have been.
In answer to above question, maybe the tests need their own scoring?
eg fast tests and with big spam scores get a hig
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Loren Wilton wrote:
> I would not be terribly surprised to find out that on average
> there was no appreciable difference in running all rules of all
> types in priority order, over the current method;
Neither am I. Another thing to consider is the fraction of defined
rules t
Loren Wilton wrote:
Well, it looks like I need to spend some time reading the code to
study exactly how SA runs rules, and see if it's doing something that
pollutes the memory cache, which would cause the over-sorting to not
matter..
As best I recall, it runs rules by type, and sorted by prio
Well, it looks like I need to spend some time reading the code to study
exactly how SA runs rules, and see if it's doing something that pollutes
the memory cache, which would cause the over-sorting to not matter..
As best I recall, it runs rules by type, and sorted by priority within type.
The
Matt Kettler wrote:
No, I'm saying it breaks the emails into pieces, then for the first
piece, it runs all the rules. Then it runs all the rules on the second
piece, and the third, and the fourth, etc.
Forcing score order causes it to run the whole message on one rule,
then then whole message
Robert - elists wrote:
You can't run the rules in score-order without driving SA's performance
into the ground.
The key here is SA doesn't run tests sequentially, it runs them in
parallel as it works its way through the body. this allows for good,
efficient use of memory cache.
By running rules
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> Yes and no. There aren't many negative scored rules, which could easily be
> put into a low priority to run first.
>
> The issue, which is where Matt was going I believe, is that the reason score
> based short circuiting was removed is that it's horribly slow to keep ch
From: "Robert - elists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, 2008, January 18 21:14
You can't run the rules in score-order without driving SA's performance
into the ground.
The key here is SA doesn't run tests sequentially, it runs them in
parallel as it works its way through the body. this allo
>
> You can't run the rules in score-order without driving SA's performance
> into the ground.
>
> The key here is SA doesn't run tests sequentially, it runs them in
> parallel as it works its way through the body. this allows for good,
> efficient use of memory cache.
>
> By running rules in sc
601 - 700 of 1335 matches
Mail list logo
