On 12/10/15 10:58, Bill Cole wrote:
On 10 Dec 2015, at 13:25, Paul Stead wrote:
On 10/12/15 18:23, Paul Stead wrote:
On 10/12/15 17:24, Bill Cole wrote:
On 10 Dec 2015, at 10:48, Paul Stead wrote:
0.004% hit rate on ham
Clarify this please: 4 out of 100k hits are ham (not so bad) OR 4 ou
On 10 Dec 2015, at 13:25, Paul Stead wrote:
On 10/12/15 18:23, Paul Stead wrote:
On 10/12/15 17:24, Bill Cole wrote:
On 10 Dec 2015, at 10:48, Paul Stead wrote:
0.004% hit rate on ham
Clarify this please: 4 out of 100k hits are ham (not so bad) OR 4
out
of 100k hams get hit (OUCH)
The
On 10/12/15 18:23, Paul Stead wrote:
On 10/12/15 17:24, Bill Cole wrote:
On 10 Dec 2015, at 10:48, Paul Stead wrote:
0.004% hit rate on ham
Clarify this please: 4 out of 100k hits are ham (not so bad) OR 4 out
of 100k hams get hit (OUCH)
The former, 4 out of 100k hit are ham emails
Re-cl
On 10/12/15 17:24, Bill Cole wrote:
On 10 Dec 2015, at 10:48, Paul Stead wrote:
0.004% hit rate on ham
Clarify this please: 4 out of 100k hits are ham (not so bad) OR 4 out
of 100k hams get hit (OUCH)
The former, 4 out of 100k hit are ham emails
--
Paul Stead
Systems Engineer
Zen Internet
Am 10.12.2015 um 18:24 schrieb Bill Cole:
On 10 Dec 2015, at 10:48, Paul Stead wrote:
0.004% hit rate on ham
Clarify this please: 4 out of 100k hits are ham (not so bad) OR 4 out of
100k hams get hit (OUCH)
what exactly is ouch here?
razor, pyzor and what not else hits that rate ham all
On 10 Dec 2015, at 10:48, Paul Stead wrote:
0.004% hit rate on ham
Clarify this please: 4 out of 100k hits are ham (not so bad) OR 4 out of
100k hams get hit (OUCH)
Here's some quick stats from our servers:
Hits on 0.16% of all email
Hits 2.5% of spam detected
58% overlap with my iXhash implementation
0.004% hit rate on ham
Paul
On 10/12/15 14:52, Rick Macdougall wrote:
On 2015-12-09 11:58 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
On 12/09/15 05:50, Rick Macdougall wrote:
On 2015-12-09 11:58 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
On 12/09/15 05:50, Rick Macdougall wrote:
Hi,
The messages it flags are messages that would have been caught without
it. About 2% of messages it flags are not seen by any other markers.
Regards,
Rick
Any false positives?
I suppose catching the
On 12/09/15 05:50, Rick Macdougall wrote:
Hi,
The messages it flags are messages that would have been caught without
it. About 2% of messages it flags are not seen by any other markers.
Regards,
Rick
Any false positives?
I suppose catching the same messages again just creates more con
On 2015-12-08 9:46 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm confused. Are you saying it's catching the same spam messages you
about the same amount?
If they are new messages then it's doing well.
On 12/08/15 12:43, Rick Macdougall wrote:
Hi,
Quick and dirty look.
grep CTYME_IXHASH /var/log/spamd/current
I'm confused. Are you saying it's catching the same spam messages you
about the same amount?
If they are new messages then it's doing well.
On 12/08/15 12:43, Rick Macdougall wrote:
Hi,
Quick and dirty look.
grep CTYME_IXHASH /var/log/spamd/current | wc
1472058 79255
grep RAZOR /
Hi,
Quick and dirty look.
grep CTYME_IXHASH /var/log/spamd/current | wc
1472058 79255
grep RAZOR /var/log/spamd/current | wc
1381932 73479
grep RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET /var/log/spamd/current | wc
1962744 97495
Almost all CTYME hits had a corresponding RAZOR hit.
I'd like to get a sense from everyone how well it works. Is it hitting
spam other tests aren't hitting? Are there false positives?
On 12/08/15 05:57, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 08.12.2015 um 14:37 schrieb Alex:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Marc Perkel
wrote:
ixhashdnsbl CTYME_IXHASH i
Am 08.12.2015 um 14:37 schrieb Alex:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Marc Perkel
wrote:
ixhashdnsbl CTYME_IXHASH ixhash.junkemailfilter.com.
bodyCTYME_IXHASH eval:check_ixhash('CTYME_IXHASH')
describeCTYME_IXHASH iXhash found @ ixhash.junkemailfilter.com
tflags
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Marc Perkel
wrote:
> ixhashdnsbl CTYME_IXHASH ixhash.junkemailfilter.com.
> bodyCTYME_IXHASH eval:check_ixhash('CTYME_IXHASH')
> describeCTYME_IXHASH iXhash found @ ixhash.junkemailfilter.com
> tflags CTYME_IXHASH net
> score
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 18:43:14 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 07.12.2015 um 18:30 schrieb Jari Fredriksson:
> > On 7.12.2015 18:51, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >> On 12/07/15 00:10, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> >>> On Dec 6, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Marc Perkel
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> ixhashdnsbl CTYM
Am 07.12.2015 um 18:30 schrieb Jari Fredriksson:
On 7.12.2015 18:51, Marc Perkel wrote:
On 12/07/15 00:10, Charles Sprickman wrote:
On Dec 6, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Marc Perkel
wrote:
ixhashdnsbl CTYME_IXHASH ixhash.junkemailfilter.com.
bodyCTYME_IXHASH eval:check_ixhash('CTYME
On 7.12.2015 18:51, Marc Perkel wrote:
On 12/07/15 00:10, Charles Sprickman wrote:
On Dec 6, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Marc Perkel
wrote:
ixhashdnsbl CTYME_IXHASH ixhash.junkemailfilter.com.
bodyCTYME_IXHASH eval:check_ixhash('CTYME_IXHASH')
describeCTYME_IXHASH iXhash found
On 12/07/15 00:10, Charles Sprickman wrote:
On Dec 6, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
ixhashdnsbl CTYME_IXHASH ixhash.junkemailfilter.com.
bodyCTYME_IXHASH eval:check_ixhash('CTYME_IXHASH')
describeCTYME_IXHASH iXhash found @ ixhash.junkemailfilter.com
tflags
On Dec 6, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
> ixhashdnsbl CTYME_IXHASH ixhash.junkemailfilter.com.
> bodyCTYME_IXHASH eval:check_ixhash('CTYME_IXHASH')
> describeCTYME_IXHASH iXhash found @ ixhash.junkemailfilter.com
> tflags CTYME_IXHASH net
> score
Do i use this with the ixhash plugin?
> Am 07.12.2015 um 05:41 schrieb Marc Perkel :
>
> ixhashdnsbl CTYME_IXHASH ixhash.junkemailfilter.com.
> bodyCTYME_IXHASH eval:check_ixhash('CTYME_IXHASH')
> describeCTYME_IXHASH iXhash found @ ixhash.junkemailfilter.com
> tflags
ixhashdnsbl CTYME_IXHASH ixhash.junkemailfilter.com.
bodyCTYME_IXHASH eval:check_ixhash('CTYME_IXHASH')
describeCTYME_IXHASH iXhash found @ ixhash.junkemailfilter.com
tflags CTYME_IXHASH net
score CTYME_IXHASH 5
Let me know if it's useful.
--
Marc Perk
22 matches
Mail list logo
