Hi,
Actually, that's a Snowshoe IP.
Which, on balance, can be a good thing, slaying-wise. :)
You mean that it's more likely to be added to the SBL with the other
IPs in the same range sooner?
Almost four years ago, I posted my approach to snowshoe slaying:
Hi Alex!
Actually, that's a Snowshoe IP.
Which, on balance, can be a good thing, slaying-wise. :)
Almost four years ago, I posted my approach to snowshoe slaying:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200902.mbox/%3c20090204.0...@iowahoneypot.com%3e
It has
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Alex wrote:
I have an example of spam that I just can't reliably detect:
http://pastebin.com/YuuLuA1x
I was just wondering if there was something else that could be
triggered on in the header to catch these sooner? I'm assuming the
sending IP part of a botnet? I'm using
Hi everyone,
Here are some observations on using Bayes and autolearning I would like
to share, and have your input on.
Autolearning is turining out to be more trouble than it's worth.
Although it helps the system to get to know the ham we send and get, and
learn some of the spams on its own,
On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 14:28 +0200, Paul Boven wrote:
Hi everyone,
Here are some observations on using Bayes and autolearning I would like
to share, and have your input on.
Autolearning is turining out to be more trouble than it's worth.
Although it helps the system to get to know the
Paul Boven wrote:
Hi everyone,
Here are some observations on using Bayes and autolearning I would like
to share, and have your input on.
Autolearning is turining out to be more trouble than it's worth.
Although it helps the system to get to know the ham we send and get, and
learn some of the
Paul Boven wrote:
Hi everyone,
Here are some observations on using Bayes and autolearning I would like
to share, and have your input on.
Okay!
Some suggestions on improving the performance of the Bayes system:
1.) Messages that have been manually submitted should have a higher
'weight' in the
Paul Boven wrote:
Hi everyone,
Here are some observations on using Bayes and autolearning I would like
to share, and have your input on.
Autolearning is turining out to be more trouble than it's worth.
Although it helps the system to get to know the ham we send and get, and
learn some of the
Hi Jim,
Jim Maul wrote:
Paul Boven wrote:
Bayes is a very powerfull system, especially for recognising
site-specific ham. But at this moment, apx. 30% of the spam that slips
trough my filter has 'autolearn=ham' set. And another 60% of the spam
slipping trough has a negative Bayes score to help
mailbox is on the system where you
run SpamAssassin and you can retrain from the commandline. That's only a
small subset of all email-users though. Once the setup gets a bit more
complicated, involves IMAP servers, forwarding etc., you get in trouble.
4.) The Bayes subsystem should store
Hi Kevin, everyone,
Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
Paul Boven wrote:
but my goal is to find a way of doing this that is
independent of the rest of the mail-system, and can then become an
integral part of SA.
Any suggestions on how to do this? One of SA's strengths is that it is
designed to be a
11 matches
Mail list logo
