On Fri, 11 Aug 2017, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017, Scott wrote:
I'm chicken. :D
I don't have much (almost no) experience overriding those yum packages.
It's pretty simple, just "yum install {local_filename}"
And those warnings I got when I rebuilt from source made me nervous
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017, Scott wrote:
I'm chicken. :D
I don't have much (almost no) experience overriding those yum packages.
It's pretty simple, just "yum install {local_filename}"
And those warnings I got when I rebuilt from source made me nervous.
I suppose I could publish the Centos 7 x8
I'm chicken. :D
I don't have much (almost no) experience overriding those yum packages. And
those warnings I got when I rebuilt from source made me nervous.
Maybe when the dust settles...
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Bayes-auto
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017, Scott wrote:
Centos7 (selinux disabled at the time of testing)
Spamassassin 3.4.0
Next on your plate: upgrading to 3.4.1...
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/25/Everything/source/tree/Packages/s/spamassassin-3.4.1-9.fc25.src.rpm
It works jes' fine he
I strongly suspected bayes auto-learn was not functioning. Read the thread
for evidence. In local.cf had the bayes path set to:
/etc/mail/bayes/bayes
Don't remember if it came packaged that way or if I followed someone else's
"guide" to ed up with that bad location. I do s
ssin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Bayes-auto-learn-not-happening-tp138065p138313.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
xOn 11-08-17 17:05, Scott wrote:
> I'm going to go back and look at my build notes but I think that directory
> got created for me. It's just as possible i followed some "guide". I am
> positive i did not think it up on my own LOL. I remember more than set of
> instructions one with that path se
care at this point.
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Bayes-auto-learn-not-happening-tp138065p138299.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:22:50 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> don't set the path, that way it should work OOTB.
Maybe amavis is different and has it's own internl default location, but
the equivalent for spamd relies on the packager giving the spamd user a
unix home directory.
I once saw a
On 10.08.17 20:15, Scott wrote:
About the only difference in my old, functioning box and this new "clean"
install was the location of the bayes files.
Old box:
/var/spool/amavisd/.spamassassin/
New box:
/etc/mail/bayes
On 11.08.17 16:22, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Do did you change bayes p
On 10.08.17 20:15, Scott wrote:
About the only difference in my old, functioning box and this new "clean"
install was the location of the bayes files.
Old box:
/var/spool/amavisd/.spamassassin/
New box:
/etc/mail/bayes
Do did you change bayes path in first place?
amavis is the only one who pr
to follow.
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Bayes-auto-learn-not-happening-tp138065p138295.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:15:48 -0700 (MST)
Scott wrote:
> For reasons beyond my skill set,
> SA will not auto-learn to a bayes db in a folder in /etc/mail/bayes.
> Regardless of wide open permissions on everything except /etc. And
> the user's confirmed ability to write to th
Aug 10, 2017; 10:15pm Scottonline Scott Re: Bayes auto-learn - not
happening, tentative success
Well, here's a development...
About the only difference in my old, functioning box and this new "clean"
install was the location of the bayes files.
Old box:
/var/spool/amavis
bayes folder from the default. I configure the bayes path to:
bayes_path /var/spool/amavisd/bayes/bayes
Send my test message, voila, db files created, and autolearn=ham Success!
(tentative, cautiously optimistic)
I hope I have solved the mystery. For reasons beyond my skill set, SA will
not au
nlocking lock
Aug 10 16:48:39.119 [7524] dbg: locker: safe_unlock: unlink
/etc/mail/bayes/bayes.lock
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Bayes-auto-learn-not-happening-tp138065p138266.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ng IT a problem? Is this a hint? (fingers crossed)
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Bayes-auto-learn-not-happening-tp138065p138264.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
0349 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0478 0 non-token data: nham
0.000 0 166030 0 non-token data: ntokens
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Bayes-auto-learn-not-happening-tp138065p138
figured some conservative values for
> auto-learn. I've enabled it properly AFAIK, but I can't see any sign of it
> working.
>
> I have these set in local.cf
> use_bayes 1
> bayes_auto_learn1
> bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -1.7
> bay
OK, so I don't think auto-learn works on spam. What about HAM?
I've raised the floor to auto-learn HAM to 1. Before anyone gives me any
grief, it's just for testing. I'll rebuild the bayes db from a corpus when
I get it working.
So SPAM takes the 3-way patch, 3 from th
OK, so I don't think auto-learn works on spam. What about HAM?
I've raised the floor to auto-learn HAM to 1. Before anyone gives me any
grief, it's just for testing. I'll rebuild the bayes db from a corpus when
I get it working.
So SPAM takes the 3-way patch, 3 from th
s not working. One thing for sure, it hasn't
found a single spam or ham to auto-learn, yet. Which seems unlikely if it were
functioning properly.
The output of "unavailable" is too ambiguous for me to devise a way to
troubleshoot. But I'm not an expert with SA. Thus the
s not working. One thing for sure, it hasn't
found a single spam or ham to auto-learn, yet. Which seems unlikely if it were
functioning properly.
The output of "unavailable" is too ambiguous for me to devise a way to
troubleshoot. But I'm not an expert with SA. Thus the
If any particular message has a
* 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100%
* [score: 1.]
Is it safe to assume that spam or one close to it has been learned and so it
would not be a candidate for auto-learn?
Maybe I'm not being patient enough.
--
View
assin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Bayes-auto-learn-not-happening-tp138065p138254.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Here is a debug log for one that just flowed. I don't see anything about why
auto-learn was unavailable. But it shows it's talking to the db anyway I
think.
Is there a way to set auto_learn_force to yes? The log format makes one
thing it's a global setting but all I can find
Here's a verbose log of amavis/spamassassin processing another high score
that just came through. I don't see a peep about auto-learn. But it was
unavailable too.
(posting via nabble, apologies if it wraps)
Aug 10 11:03:39 mail2 amavis[377]: (00377-01) LMTP :10024
/var/spool/a
ug 3 13:02 ..
-rwxrwxrwx 1 amavis amavis 86016 Aug 9 09:51 bayes_seen
-rwxrwxrwx 1 amavis amavis 5246976 Aug 9 13:49 bayes_toks
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Bayes-auto-learn-not-happening-tp138065p138251.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Us
rectly.
- re no, or careful auto-training. I get it. I'm migrating from a server that's run for
years with auto-learn on set at conservative learn values. Never had any trouble with it
thank goodness. As I look at the messages that would be autolearned, I've never found
one that
On 10.08.17 10:06, techlist06 wrote:
Update: Still NOT working, but I'm giving it hell trying to figure out why :)
- Matus: re:" autolearn=unavailable apparently due to not accessible bayes
database [due to permissions]". I hope you are right. That would make
sense to me. See below please
ing. I get it. I'm migrating from a server
that's run for years with auto-learn on set at conservative learn values.
Never had any trouble with it thank goodness. As I look at the messages that
would be autolearned, I've never found one that would have learned that should
not have in m
On 08/08/2017 08:02 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2017-08-08 15:20, Scott wrote:
Another new one big score, auto-learn disabled. This one is fairly small.
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=29.428 tag=- tag2=5 kill=6.4
tests=[DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.076, DCC_CHECK=3.2,
DIGEST_MULTIPLE=0.001
On 08.08.17 14:38, Scott wrote:
Brand new spam arrives. It gets
autolearn=unavailable.
[...]
su amavis -c 'sa-learn -D --spam --showdots --max-size=600 --mbox
/home/mail/twospam'
Aug 8 16:35:23.567 [18045] dbg: bayes: learned
'419769464db0fabb0f1220f9ae0cf12931ad7076@sa_generated', atim
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
I stopped
autolearning and hacked up some scripts that put duplicate of each ham
message into a folder which is then processed by sa-learn from a
cronjob, with sufficient delay that I can review the contents and remove
any false negatives; and similarly w
On 2017-08-08 15:20, Scott wrote:
> Another new one big score, auto-learn disabled. This one is fairly small.
>
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=29.428 tag=- tag2=5 kill=6.4
> tests=[DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.076, DCC_CHECK=3.2,
> DIGEST_MULTIPLE=0.001,
> FI
Another new one big score, auto-learn disabled. This one is fairly small.
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=29.428 tag=- tag2=5 kill=6.4
tests=[DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.076, DCC_CHECK=3.2,
DIGEST_MULTIPLE=0.001,
FILL_THIS_FORM=0.001, FROM_MISSPACED=0.001, FROM_MISSP_SPF_FAIL=1
ed similar but were corrected. Maybe they changed it,
dunno.
My concern is that auto-learn is not functioning properly. I use Amavisd that
calls spamassassin and has it's own issues. Trying to make sure my system is
operating properly. It appears it is not to me.
No hint should be necess
I was getting my commands missed up, been looking at this too long. When I
ran
su amavis -c 'spamassassin -D 2>&1 -t onespam'
That caused it to LEARN the spam. Database went from not there to one
learned. Auto-learn apparently. That's what it should have done when it
ar
concrete enough for my to latch onto. I
mean I get the gist of it, but no details on how to look at my tests and see
if I have the requisite 3 parts needed.
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Bayes-auto-learn-not-happening-tp138065p138081.htm
5:47:11.105 [17077] dbg: plugin:
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Check=HASH(0x2e04e38) implements 'finish_tests',
priority 0
Aug 8 15:47:11.116 [17077] dbg: netset: cache trusted_networks
hits/attempts: 15/17, 88.2 %
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.10653
Scott skrev den 2017-08-08 22:19:
Does this one have the requisite 3-point match? I don't understand how
to
tell yet.
spamassassin -D 2>&1 -t mail.msg | less
should show why
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:04:16 -0700 (MST)
Scott wrote:
> The "3 points" criteria does not apply to manually learning
No it's just a sanity check to reduce mistraining. If you can, don't
use autotraining at all.
Will let it run to see if it learns *anything*.
So far I have not seen that happen. Surely something will get a 3 way
match.
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Bayes-auto-learn-not-happening-tp138065p138075.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Scott skrev den 2017-08-08 22:06:
Better, what test flags in general disable auto-learn?
tflags foo-rule-name noautolearn
and you can force autolearn based on rulename
https://lists.gt.net/spamassassin/users/184996
there is a long thread there that explain it more
and all condition must
Scott skrev den 2017-08-08 22:04:
The "3 points" criteria does not apply to manually learning via
sa-update
then?
typo ?. sa-update does not learn, it just update rules, you meant
sa-learn ?
when sa-learn is used, its not autolearn, so the limits are not appled
> some of the listed tags have tflags that disable autolearn
< there is nothing to fix here
Benny: Will you elaborate for me please? So I can understand and
self-help.
Better, what test flags in general disable auto-learn?
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065
The "3 points" criteria does not apply to manually learning via sa-update
then?
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Bayes-auto-learn-not-happening-tp138065p138071.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:06:26 -0500
Scott Techlist wrote:
> Centos7
> Postfix 3.2.2
> Amavisd-new 2.11.0
> Spamassassin 3.4.0
> Site-wide configuration
>
> This is a new box and I've configured some conservative values for
> auto-learn. I've enabled it proper
Scott Techlist skrev den 2017-08-08 20:06:
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Score: 17.374
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=17.374 tag=- tag2=5 kill=6.31
tests=[RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT=1.644, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL=1.284, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.558
Centos7
Postfix 3.2.2
Amavisd-new 2.11.0
Spamassassin 3.4.0
Site-wide configuration
This is a new box and I've configured some conservative values for auto-learn.
I've enabled it properly AFAIK, but I can't see any sign of it working.
I have these set in local.cf
use_bayes
Email
* -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via
SMTP
* -0.0 NO_RECEIVED Informational: message has no Received
* headers
...
Why auto-learn wants the mail as HAM?
Because autolearning ignores rules with the noautolearn, userconf or
learn tflags set (and uses
BODY: Generic Test for Unsolicited Bulk Email
> > * -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
> > * -0.0 NO_RECEIVED Informational: message has no Received
> > * headers
> > ...
> >
> > Why auto-learn wants the mail as HAM?
&
: message has no Received
* headers
...
Why auto-learn wants the mail as HAM?
where did you see this ?, GTUBE disables autolearn
Matthias Apitz wrote:
> This is with version 3.4.0 on FreeBSD 11-CURRENT. If I run with the
> sample file:
>
> $ spamassassin -tD < Mail-SpamAssassin-3.4.0/sample-spam.txt
> Why auto-learn wants the mail as HAM?
> it says on STDERR:
> ...
> nov 5 15:47:54.521 [3
has no Received
* headers
...
Why auto-learn wants the mail as HAM?
Because autolearning ignores rules with the noautolearn, userconf or
learn tflags set (and uses the scores from scoreset 0 or 1).
Without GTUBE, this message would have had a score below the default
autolearn ham
nov 5 15:47:54.521 [3855] dbg: learn: auto-learn? no: scored as spam but
> autolearn wanted ham
> nov 5 15:47:54.521 [3855] dbg: check: is spam? score=999.998 required=3
>
> > X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=1000.0 required=3.0 tests=GTUBE,NO_RECEIVED,
> >
Hello,
This is with version 3.4.0 on FreeBSD 11-CURRENT. If I run with the
sample file:
$ spamassassin -tD < Mail-SpamAssassin-3.4.0/sample-spam.txt
it says on STDERR:
...
nov 5 15:47:54.521 [3855] dbg: learn: auto-learn: currently using scoreset 1
nov 5 15:47:54.521 [3855] dbg: learn: a
ays on STDERR:
...
nov 5 15:47:54.521 [3855] dbg: learn: auto-learn: currently using scoreset 1
nov 5 15:47:54.521 [3855] dbg: learn: auto-learn: message score: 999.998,
computed score for autolearn: 0
nov 5 15:47:54.521 [3855] dbg: learn: auto-learn? ham=0.1, spam=12,
body-points=0, head-point
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 05:13 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:40 -0500, Chris wrote:
> > Since having to wipe my bayes db I've thought about going back to having
> > 'auto-learn' setup for awhile. It's been so long since I did this I ha
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:40 -0500, Chris wrote:
> Since having to wipe my bayes db I've thought about going back to having
> 'auto-learn' setup for awhile. It's been so long since I did this I have
> a fairly dumb question. Do I need the two below lines to be set an
Since having to wipe my bayes db I've thought about going back to having
'auto-learn' setup for awhile. It's been so long since I did this I have
a fairly dumb question. Do I need the two below lines to be set and if
so is this the correct setting? Anything here about a scor
Carlos Mennens wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
>
>> Autolearn kicks in at certain scores. I believe the default is 12.0 for
>> spam and 0.1 for ham. You can customize those settings in your local.cf
>> file.
>>
>> bayes_auto_learn 1
>> bayes_auto_learn_thresho
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 12:38 -0400, Carlos Mennens wrote:
> I checked /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf just now and found only the
> following:
>
> required_hits 5
> report_safe 0
> rewrite_header Subject [SPAM]
>
> However I don't know if Amavisd-new is looking at local.cf because I
> show para
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
> Autolearn kicks in at certain scores. I believe the default is 12.0 for
> spam and 0.1 for ham. You can customize those settings in your local.cf
> file.
>
> bayes_auto_learn 1
> bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -3.0
> bayes_auto_learn_
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 11:53 -0400, Carlos Mennens wrote:
> I noticed when reviewing headers today that there was a section for
> 'autolearn=no' and was wondering what exactly does this mean and
> wouldn't autolearn be a good thing? I use Amavisd-new which calls out
> to SpamAssassin modules but I
On 4/28/10 11:53 AM, Carlos Mennens wrote:
I noticed when reviewing headers today that there was a section for
'autolearn=no'
its a SPAMASSASSIN thing. (google)
it means the score was either not high enough for SA to learn as spam
(bayes, and/or AWL) or was not low enough to learn as ham.
y
I noticed when reviewing headers today that there was a section for
'autolearn=no' and was wondering what exactly does this mean and
wouldn't autolearn be a good thing? I use Amavisd-new which calls out
to SpamAssassin modules but I don't have the spamd daemon running
physically. The Amavisd-new da
in spam, so would
> a ham threshold of like -100 work, or present the same problem?
60_whitelist.cf: tflags USER_IN_WHITELIST userconf nice noautolearn
Again, as per the docs [1], whitelisting will not be considered for the
decision whether to auto-learn
Is there a certain rule that is ignored when determining the
score SA uses for autolearn?
Maybe this?
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AutoLearnThreshold
" Note: SpamAssassin requires at least 3 points from the header, and
3 points from the body to auto-learn as
auto-learning occurs using scores from either
scoreset 0 or 1, depending on what scoreset is used during message
check. It is likely that the message check and auto-learn scores
will be different.
Note: SpamAssassin requires at least 3 points from the
header, and 3 points fro
autolearn=spam
>
> Thanks,
> Dan Schaefer
> Web Developer/Systems Analyst
> Performance Administration Corp.
Maybe this?
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AutoLearnThreshold
" Note: SpamAssassin requires at least 3 points from the header, and
3 points fr
Clip of /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
__
required_score 7
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AutoLearnThreshold
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam 0.1
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 10.0
endif
__
Some messages with a SA score of 10 or higher are auto-l
Daniel Aquino wrote:
> Is spam assassin smart enough to not auto-learn (bayesian) spam if the
> default tests "allready" detect it as spam... ?
No, in fact, that's exactly what you DO NOT want to do.
Bayes training is not applicable to just one message. Bits learned from
on
Daniel Aquino wrote:
Is spam assassin smart enough to not auto-learn (bayesian) spam if the
default tests "allready" detect it as spam... ? What I'm wondering is
if the other tests have allready deamed it to be spam, then why would
you want to increase the size of your bayesian
Daniel Aquino wrote:
> Is spam assassin smart enough to not auto-learn (bayesian) spam if the
> default tests "allready" detect it as spam... ? What I'm wondering is
> if the other tests have allready deamed it to be spam, then why would
> you want to increase t
Is spam assassin smart enough to not auto-learn (bayesian) spam if the
default tests "allready" detect it as spam... ? What I'm wondering is
if the other tests have allready deamed it to be spam, then why would
you want to increase the size of your bayesian db... Bayesian I
b
/c++ so this is some kind of cumulative sum of something. On one
run of sa-learn in debug mode I got the following numbers back:
[28135] dbg: learn: auto-learn: currently using scoreset 3, recomputing
score based on scoreset 1
[28135] dbg: learn: auto-learn: message score: 10.955, computed scor
ram01 wrote:
> "auto-learn? no: scored as spam but learner indicated ham"
> is given if if ($learned_points < $learner_said_ham_points)where
> $learner_said_ham_points = -1.0
>
> what exactly is learned_points
>
It is a recalculation of the message score,
"auto-learn? no: scored as spam but learner indicated ham"
is given if if ($learned_points < $learner_said_ham_points)where
$learner_said_ham_points = -1.0
what exactly is learned_points
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/auto-learn-learned_points-t
Email Lists wrote:
> ->
> -> You can clear the AWL for a sender like this:
> ->
> -> spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ->
> -> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is the sender)
> ->
> -> Make sure you do this as the user who is having the problem.
> ->
> -> > Thanks and kind regards
->
-> You can clear the AWL for a sender like this:
->
-> spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
->
-> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is the sender)
->
-> Make sure you do this as the user who is having the problem.
->
-> > Thanks and kind regards
->
-> If this doesn't help, post
Email Lists wrote:
> >
> > Its probably an AWL score, but without showing us a list of the
> > tests hit on one of these emails all we can do is throw straws in
> > the air and guess.
> > Loren
> >
>
> Ok, a box of straws will be on the way immediately...
>
> Any special colors? ;->
>
->
-> Its probably an AWL score, but without showing us a list of the tests hit
-> on
-> one of these emails all we can do is throw straws in the air and guess.
->
-> Loren
->
Ok, a box of straws will be on the way immediately...
Any special colors? ;->
I appreciate your time and th
After awhile I removed all of it and restarted everything yet the test
domain I did this with at first is still getting really high spam scores
and
is causing me a problem cause it is a secondary mail account live domain
etc.
Its probably an AWL score, but without showing us a list of the test
On Thu, September 28, 2006 1:08 pm, Email Lists said:
> # Use Bayesian classifier (default: 1)
> #
> # use_bayes 1
>
> # Bayesian classifier auto-learning (default: 1)
> #
> # bayes_auto_learn 1
>
> Please notice that they are commented out and have never been put in
> service.
Since those ar
-> I placed with some rules some time back because I didn't like to see list
-> emails from this one person with very poor judgement and taste in his
-> signature lines decisions...
->
-> Looked like this and I added them to my local.cf
->
-> #
->header LOCAL_DEMONSTRATION_ALL ALL =~ /th
I placed with some rules some time back because I didn't like to see list
emails from this one person with very poor judgement and taste in his
signature lines decisions...
Looked like this and I added them to my local.cf
#
header LOCAL_DEMONSTRATION_ALL ALL =~ /thatjerksdomsin\.com/i
On Sonntag, 23. April 2006 04:02 Gaute Lund wrote:
> So, I was hoping to get a different opinion here.
I use bayes per server, not per user or domain. I've set autolearn, with
everything 8+ points as spam, below +1 as ham.
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 8.00
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspa
ds for doing so,
hoping for any input from people with more precise knowledge regarding SA's
bayes implementation.
On our 60-some domains SA has, since 2006-03-01, caught 70 000 spam out of a
total 150 000 messages. Now, say we were to use auto-learn. Only over this short
time span, the bayes filte
On Friday 13 January 2006 01:25, Loren Wilton wrote:
> Going to 3.0.5 should be pretty painless. Going to 3.1 will be a bit more
> of a bother.
>
Trust me going to 3.1.0 should so cool. :-)
> Loren
--
---
Ronnie Tash
Everything can be achieved as long you can do what it t
ssassin" and "spamd" files floating
around in various /usr/bin directories. (I'd look in /usr/local/bin,
for example.)
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Matt Kettler'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Robert Bartlett wrote:
> Are there any "starter" ham/spam emails I can use? I thought I saw one, but
> it wasn't for a MySQL database. Im using Bayes, site wide, in mysql. I hate
> to feed it emails I think is ham or spam.
Personally I violently detest "starter" bayes databases, and feel that in t
obert Bartlett
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: AWL and Auto Learn Bayes
Robert Bartlett wrote:
> Ok fixed the symbolic link error, I updated the spamd script with the
> 3.0.5 one, but backed up the old one. Restored the old one and no
> errors. It still shows 3.0.5 in the l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(Please don't top-post, it ruins the formatting and flow of the thread!)
Robert Bartlett wrote:
> Are there any "starter" ham/spam emails I can use? I thought I saw one, but
> it wasn't for a MySQL database. Im using Bayes, site wide, in mysql. I hate
y, January 12, 2006 3:30 PM
To: Robert Bartlett
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: AWL and Auto Learn Bayes
Robert Bartlett wrote:
> Ok fixed the symbolic link error, I updated the spamd script with the
> 3.0.5 one, but backed up the old one. Restored the old one and no
> err
Robert Bartlett wrote:
> Ok fixed the symbolic link error, I updated the spamd script with the 3.0.5
> one, but backed up the old one. Restored the old one and no errors. It still
> shows 3.0.5 in the logs but not in the email headers. Any idea where to look
> to see what Im pumping into spamc? I a
Going to 3.0.5 should be pretty painless. Going to 3.1 will be a bit more
of a bother.
Loren
Robert Bartlett wrote:
> Jan 12 15:01:35 milkyway spamd[17235]: Can't write to PID file: Too many
> levels of symbolic links
>
> I look in the directory for the pid file and its highlighted red, so now the
> link is not working? And it still shows as 3.0.1 in the header of emails.
Did you mean t
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Robert Bartlett wrote:
Hello,
Thanks for the help. It seems to be painless, but in the headers it still
shows 3.0.1, but when I startup SA in debug mode it says 3.0.5. I vagually
remember a file I had to edit to show the proper version in the email
heade
day, January 12, 2006 3:20 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: AWL and Auto Learn Bayes
From: "Craig McLean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Robert Bartlett wrote:
>> Since finding out the trusted_network i
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
