On 1/17/2023 7:33 AM, David Bürgin wrote:
I have heard it said many times on this list that auto-learning is
discouraged, so I decided to finally look into disabling it.
But then I realised that I do have a use for auto-learning: In my setup,
I use a milter to reject certain spam (score > 1
On 1/17/2023 7:33 AM, David Bürgin wrote:
I have heard it said many times on this list that auto-learning is
discouraged, so I decided to finally look into disabling it.
But then I realised that I do have a use for auto-learning: In my setup,
I use a milter to reject certain spam (score > 1
I have heard it said many times on this list that auto-learning is
discouraged, so I decided to finally look into disabling it.
But then I realised that I do have a use for auto-learning: In my setup,
I use a milter to reject certain spam (score > 10.0). Now, if I turn off
auto-learning I l
and bayes_min_spam_num.
note that too few mails trained can result in false positives/negatives.
I am currently collecting spam on one of my servers via a spam trap
address and slowly reaching that number. I was wondering, though, if I
can use auto learning (bayes_auto_learn 1), before training
address and
slowly reaching that number. I was wondering, though, if I can use auto
learning (bayes_auto_learn 1), before training the database ?
When autolearn fires on messages at the moment, it is correctly detecting ham
and spam based on the default ham and spam thresholds
arn_on_error" enabled, then
autolearn will be skipped if Bayes already agrees with the condition of the message. IE:
if the message is already classifed as BAYES_99 then it won't bother auto-learning it as
yet another high-ranking spam.
I do not have that enabled. Also, as you can see from above
On 2/24/2018 2:05 AM, Amir Caspi wrote:
Does the above provide an indication as to why it didn't autolearn?
No, the above does not help as the autolearning is complicated. I
believe a few years ago I added debug output or headers or something
that tried to make it clearer. If it doesn't
learn will be skipped if Bayes already agrees with the condition of
> the message. IE: if the message is already classifed as BAYES_99 then it
> won't bother auto-learning it as yet another high-ranking spam.
I do not have that enabled. Also, as you can see from above, this hit BAYES_50.
Do
On 2018-02-23 22:32, Amir Caspi wrote:
> So, I've been trying to tweak my setup and noticed that VERY few of my
> emails are being autolearned as spam, even when their spam threshold
> is far above the autolearn threshold. The threshold is set to 12; I
> just saw a spam with score >25 not being
mir
If you read the spamassassin documentation about Bayes auto-learning you will
see that there are several conditions that must be satisfied.
For example, there are some types of rules which aren't considered at all when
computing the auto-learning threshold score (such as white/black list sco
Hi all,
So, I've been trying to tweak my setup and noticed that VERY few of my
emails are being autolearned as spam, even when their spam threshold is far
above the autolearn threshold. The threshold is set to 12; I just saw a spam
with score >25 not being autolearned.
Are
On 07/02/2014 12:52 AM, Axb wrote:
Site wide bayes works VERY well even under such ugly conditions as
traffic with multiple languages, for ham as well as spam.
Please tell me more.
This goes against Paul Graham's orginal advice, IIRC. And it goes
against intuition. Then again. Bayesian
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/01/2014 11:14 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Autolearn trains the bayes database. The bayes data is stored wherever
you configured it to be stored, in a DBM database or SQL or redis, and
it's per-user if you configure per-user Bayes databases and
On 07/02/2014 08:00 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/02/2014 12:52 AM, Axb wrote:
Site wide bayes works VERY well even under such ugly conditions as
traffic with multiple languages, for ham as well as spam.
Please tell me more.
This goes against Paul Graham's orginal advice, IIRC. And it
Well... I just turned on autolearn for a moment, deleted the bayes_*
files on the test account I use, and sent myself a message from my usual
outside account. And new bayes_* files were created. So I was wrong, and
I win. More options.
So now I can proceed to the what does this mean? phase.
Axb,
I'm not sure I quite believe it. And I'm not quite sure I trust you. But
you do make an attractive pitch. Excellent spam filtering, system-wide,
with no responsibility for training on the part of the users?
This sounds like the kind of too good to be true message that I'd
expect to
On 07/02/2014 08:48 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
Someone, please convince me that I should turn it on.
autolearn doesn't mean you cannot also train manually...
Should I turn it on and take my train as ham entry out of .forward? Or
should I not?
manually training ham from unreviewed data?
bad
On 07/02/2014 09:01 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
Axb,
I'm not sure I quite believe it. And I'm not quite sure I trust you. But
you do make an attractive pitch. Excellent spam filtering, system-wide,
with no responsibility for training on the part of the users?
YOu don't need to trust me or
On 07/02/2014 02:02 AM, Axb wrote:
and don't count on that - they may do it the first week, new toy,
but for how long?
Not new. They'd previously been training SA with Evolution for some
years. I have some confidence in many of them doing it right.
Also: take in mind each user's
count and a factor taken from being classified as spam or ham.
This learning process can be either externally driven (known as 'manual'
learning) or via an automated process from within SA as it scores messages
(known as 'auto' learning). So regardless of whether manual or auto
learning is utilized
On 07/02/2014 02:14 AM, Axb wrote:
YOu don't need to trust me or believe me (I'm not selling anything -
just commenting on what works for me)
Well, I know you know what I meant.
Ever thought of running a newer distro in a VM, only for SA and let
spamass-milter use that?
That would mean
check may hit it more accurately as it's been
added to block-lists in the mean-time.
If it starts going wrong, doesn't that mean the errors are going to spiral
out of control?
That is a possible risk of relying solely on auto-learning.
The autolearn system has been carefully crafted and tuned
' from it and uses an algorithm to calculate a
score for the message based upon a dictionary of previously seen tokens
and their relative merit.
Yeah. Bayesian statistics is pretty cool.
or via an automated process from within SA as it scores messages
(known as 'auto' learning). So regardless
about greylisting. ;-)
But for all the discussion today, we never really had a good talk about
postscreen, which is something I'd like to hear someone expound a bit upon.
I've used site-wide Bayes with auto-learning at a site with ~3000 users
and have had to flush restart our Bayes database
On 07/02/2014 10:47 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
I'll add you to the list of people telling me that jumping out of an
airplane at 20,000 feet with nothing but a parachute and a pair of
underwear is fun.
Yep... it is...
though you could catch a cold...
On 07/02/2014 10:47 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
But for all the discussion today, we never really had a good talk about
postscreen, which is something I'd like to hear someone expound a bit upon.
probably Wrong list ... review Postfix list archives
On 07/02/2014 10:47 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
The DNSBL's are problematic because so many ISP's mail servers are on
them. We get quite a few emails from employees at companies who's ISP's
are on Spamhaus lists, or whatever, due to nothing that has anything to
do with them.
I'm pretty sure, a
On 07/02/2014 06:45 AM, Axb wrote:
I'm pretty sure, a huge amount of SA users trust Spamhaus' ZEN at smtp
level for outright rejects.
At this point, I'm using the defaults, other than upping BAYES_999
enough to enough to total to 5.0 when added to BAYES_99.
If a sender's IP is listed
On 07/02/2014 03:54 PM, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/02/2014 06:45 AM, Axb wrote:
I'm pretty sure, a huge amount of SA users trust Spamhaus' ZEN at smtp
level for outright rejects.
At this point, I'm using the defaults, other than upping BAYES_999
enough to enough to total to 5.0 when added
You are discussing about DNSBLs but not being specific.
I'm specific in that all the DNSBL's blacklist IP addresses or blocks.
And that in today's world many, many companies share sets of mail
servers with many other companies and individuals.
I'll let others sell you this Hoover.
No
On 07/02/2014 04:40 PM, Steve Bergman wrote:
You are discussing about DNSBLs but not being specific.
I'm specific in that all the DNSBL's blacklist IP addresses or blocks.
And that in today's world many, many companies share sets of mail
servers with many other companies and individuals.
On 07/02/2014 09:48 AM, Axb wrote:
If an IP is exploited/sends spam and a legitimate msg is rejected then
somebody hasn't done due diligence and I see the reject as legitimated.
The legitimate senders and receivers of the good message, neither of
whom's companies have anything to do with
On 07/02/2014 05:39 PM, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/02/2014 09:48 AM, Axb wrote:
If an IP is exploited/sends spam and a legitimate msg is rejected then
somebody hasn't done due diligence and I see the reject as legitimated.
The legitimate senders and receivers of the good message, neither of
I suggest you join the SDLU list where you can discuss anti spam
philosophy.
Thanks. I suggest that you consult for an ISP-dependent business
someday. ;-)
It's an education, too.
-Steve
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Steve Bergman sbergma...@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest you join the SDLU list where you can discuss anti spam
philosophy.
Thanks. I suggest that you consult for an ISP-dependent business someday.
;-)
It's an education, too.
-Steve
Just a heads-up... that
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Axb wrote:
If a sender's IP is listed @Spamhaus , he has a serious problem reaching
many, many destinations. If he's been expoited, you get good evidence and
fast delisting processsing and I have yet to see a real FP with ZEN.
A week or so back they briefly listed some of
On 07/02/2014 11:10 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Just a heads-up... that sort of biting comment is probably not welcome
I'm familiar with adapting to the relative insularities of various
lists. But thanks for the head-up, Jim.
-Steve
On 07/02/2014 11:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
A week or so back they briefly listed some of the MailControl.com MTAs,
due to apparent exploits. They were quickly removed, though.
So the message here is that some DNSBL's are better than others about
including and removing addresses quickly and
On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 18:43 -0500, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/01/2014 06:09 PM, RW wrote:
I'm sceptical about the use of Dovecot-Antispam with Spamassassin.
The problem is that it trains on SpamAssassin errors rather than Bayes
errors. It may be possible to get sufficient spam this way, but
On 07/01/2014 07:32 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
That's pretty bad practice. Fundamentally, you are implementing a custom
auto-learn flavor, overruling the SA configurable auto-learn behavior
SA's autolearn behavior doesn't make much sense. I have no confidence in it.
This method shields
On 07/01/2014 07:32 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
That's pretty bad practice. Fundamentally, you are implementing a custom
auto-learn flavor, overruling the SA configurable auto-learn behavior
BTW, that reminds me of a question I had been meaning to ask on the
list. Autolearn. There's
much sense. I have no confidence in it.
The auto-learning feature is NOT meant to be a fully automated training
system. It's an aid for the user to eliminate the need to care about the
extremes, while focusing on the close-calls. There are options to tweak
to your specific needs, and there even
On 07/01/2014 09:53 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Frankly, it appears you don't understand what auto-learning is.
So please specify, explicitly, what it is. I asked some specific
questions about it. And I'm very interested in the answers.
Is auto-learn still system-wide? I'd need
On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 20:53 -0500, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/01/2014 07:32 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
That's pretty bad practice. Fundamentally, you are implementing a custom
auto-learn flavor, overruling the SA configurable auto-learn behavior
BTW, that reminds me of a question I
On 07/01/2014 10:21 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
http://spamassassin.apache.org/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html
http://spamassassin.apache.org/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_AutoLearnThreshold.html
I've read those over and over. It never says anything about where the
data is maintained, or
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/01/2014 10:21 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
http: //spamassassin.apache.org/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html
http:
//spamassassin.apache.org/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_AutoLearnThreshold.html
I've read those over and over. It never says
On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 22:18 -0500, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/01/2014 09:53 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Frankly, it appears you don't understand what auto-learning is.
So please specify, explicitly, what it is. I asked some specific
questions about it. And I'm very interested
On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 22:40 -0500, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/01/2014 10:21 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
http://spamassassin.apache.org/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html
http://spamassassin.apache.org/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_AutoLearnThreshold.html
I've read those over and over. It
On 07/01/2014 11:49 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Those do not tell you about using file or SQL based databases?
They do. But not specifically with respect to autolearn.
You never
thought about googling for spamassassin per user and friends? You
never checked the SA wiki?
I have,
On 07/01/2014 11:14 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Autolearn trains the bayes database. The bayes data is stored wherever
you configured it to be stored, in a DBM database or SQL or redis, and
it's per-user if you configure per-user Bayes databases and scan emails
using different usernames (vs. a
On 07/02/2014 07:19 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
On 07/01/2014 11:49 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Those do not tell you about using file or SQL based databases?
They do. But not specifically with respect to autolearn.
You never
thought about googling for spamassassin per user and friends?
Lets turn this around? Can you prove autolearn was ever done to memory?
I'm not really interested in proving anything. I'm interested in being
convinced that autolearn is individual file-based when spamc is run as
the individual user.
I'm not quite sure how that would affect my strategy.
On 07/02/2014 07:37 AM, Steve Bergman wrote:
Lets turn this around? Can you prove autolearn was ever done to memory?
I'm not really interested in proving anything. I'm interested in being
convinced that autolearn is individual file-based when spamc is run as
the individual user.
It's in
on the borderline cases, but also have
auto-learning enabled. Is that really a bad idea? Should I disable
it, delete the bayes-databases and start over on manual-only
learning?
do you run manual learning? Keeping it only automatic learning can
easily make things go wrong and let people think bayes is bad
Hi,
Not sure if this is the correct forum, but google couldn't help me (or I
am too low on caffeine).
I get a lot of spam that would have been flagged as such, but a bayes
score of -1.9 pulls it down to hammy status.
I train Bayes manually on the borderline cases, but also have
auto
manually on the borderline cases, but also have
auto-learning enabled. Is that really a bad idea? Should I disable
it,
delete the bayes-databases and start over on manual-only learning?
no training is always good, its more like that bayes is unsure thats
the problem, when it autolearn it does
On 28-09-2011 13:20, Benny Pedersen wrote:
I train Bayes manually on the borderline cases, but also have
auto-learning enabled. Is that really a bad idea? Should I disable it,
delete the bayes-databases and start over on manual-only learning?
no training is always good
Are you missing
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:30:32 +0200, Lars Jørgensen wrote:
On 28-09-2011 13:20, Benny Pedersen wrote:
I train Bayes manually on the borderline cases, but also have
auto-learning enabled. Is that really a bad idea? Should I disable
it,
delete the bayes-databases and start over on manual-only
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:30:32 +0200
Lars Jørgensen wrote:
Looking at
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.3.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html#learning_options
i see an option called bayes_use_hapaxes that promises
significantly better hit-rates, but also increases database size by a
Hi,
I recall reading somewhere that there is a way to prevent a rule from
being considered for Bayes auto-learning. I am trying to create a rule
that hits upon some obvious spam that I am seeing, yet I want to make
sure (for now) that any scores it assigns are not used for anything
Bayes
Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
Hi,
I recall reading somewhere that there is a way to prevent a rule from
being considered for Bayes auto-learning. I am trying to create a
rule that hits upon some obvious spam that I am seeing, yet I want to
make sure (for now) that any scores it assigns
On 10/21/10 11:57 AM, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
Hi,
I recall reading somewhere that there is a way to prevent a rule from
being considered for Bayes auto-learning. I am trying to create a rule
that hits upon some obvious spam that I am seeing, yet I want to make
sure (for now) that any scores
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 13:27 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
I recall reading somewhere that there is a way to prevent a rule from
being considered for Bayes auto-learning. I am trying to create a rule
^ ^
that hits upon some obvious spam that I am seeing
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 18:39 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
See M::SA::Plugin::AutoLearnThreshold. In a nutshell, (a) there are a
few tflags that will prevent a rule's score to be used for auto-learning
and (b) the score used is picked from the respective non-bayes
score-set
On 21/10/2010 2:17 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 18:39 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
See M::SA::Plugin::AutoLearnThreshold. In a nutshell, (a) there are a
few tflags that will prevent a rule's score to be used for auto-learning
and (b) the score used is picked from
On 2010/10/21 12:17 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
we decided that we didn't too much care to auto learn as 'not spam',
emails sent from marketing companies, (because the reverse is true for
auto learn ham) thus:
aa_scores.cf:tflags RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI net nice noautolearn
aa_scores.cf:tflags
Le mardi 11 août 2009 05:12:05, Cedric Knight a écrit :
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
Le lundi 10 août 2009 19:15:15, Cedric Knight a écrit :
Stefan wrote:
[...]
You have to forward the message as an attachment un unpack it after
receiving. Have a look at:
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
Le lundi 10 août 2009 19:15:15, Cedric Knight a écrit :
Stefan wrote:
[...]
You have to forward the message as an attachment un unpack it after
receiving. Have a look at:
https://po2.uni-stuttgart.de/~rusjako/sal-wrapper
Yes, I find this approach works well.
Am Sonntag, 9. August 2009 07:36:54 schrieb Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz:
Hi SAs,
Well, after reading this link
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/sa-learn.html I'm still
looking for an easy-way to let my mortal users to train our antispam. I
was thinking a mailbox such as
Stefan wrote:
Am Sonntag, 9. August 2009 07:36:54 schrieb Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz:
Hi SAs,
Well, after reading this link
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/sa-learn.html I'm still
looking for an easy-way to let my mortal users to train our antispam. I
was thinking a mailbox
Stefan wrote:
This may not be ideal, but in Thunderbird, you can drag
messages between mailboxes. You could setup each user to
have access to their own account and the two learning
mailboxes. You can then have your users drag the false
positives/negatives to the appropriate box. I have not
Stefan wrote:
Am Sonntag, 9. August 2009 07:36:54 schrieb Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz:
Hi SAs,
Well, after reading this link
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/sa-learn.html I'm still
looking for an easy-way to let my mortal users to train our antispam. I
was thinking a mailbox
Le lundi 10 août 2009 19:15:15, Cedric Knight a écrit :
Stefan wrote:
Am Sonntag, 9. August 2009 07:36:54 schrieb Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz:
Hi SAs,
Well, after reading this link
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/sa-learn.html I'm still
looking for an easy-way to let my
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
Hi SAs,
Well, after reading this link
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/sa-learn.html I'm still looking
for an easy-way to let my mortal users to train our antispam. I was thinking
a mailbox such as h...@antispamserver and s...@antispamserver
Le dimanche 9 août 2009 06:52:49, vous avez écrit :
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
Hi SAs,
Well, after reading this link
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/sa-learn.html I'm still
looking for an easy-way to let my mortal users to train our antispam. I
was thinking a
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 00:36:54 -0500
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz luis.daniel.lu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi SAs,
Well, after reading this link
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/sa-learn.html I'm still
looking for an easy-way to let my mortal users to train our
antispam.
If your users
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 00:36:54 -0500, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz
1. Will forwarded mails be usefull for training, I mean if spam was:
From:
spa...@example.netTo: u...@mydomain, when forwarding it will be
From:
mu...@mydomain To: s...@antispamserver. Change of this and forwarding
Le dimanche 9 août 2009 10:56:59, Benny Pedersen a écrit :
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 00:36:54 -0500, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz
1. Will forwarded mails be usefull for training, I mean if spam was:
From:
spa...@example.netTo: u...@mydomain, when forwarding it will be
From:
mu...@mydomain
Hi SAs,
Well, after reading this link
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/sa-learn.html I'm still looking
for an easy-way to let my mortal users to train our antispam. I was thinking
a mailbox such as h...@antispamserver and s...@antispamserver to let users to
forward their false
Hi,
I'm configuring SA and I'm looking for an easy way for the end users to
improve their own Bayesian filters.
Users do not have interactive account on the Linux servers. They cannot use
sa-learn or any other Linux tools.
It could be fine if they could automatically resend to their own mailbox
Jerome Delamarche wrote:
Hi,
I'm configuring SA and I'm looking for an easy way for the end users to
improve their own Bayesian filters.
Users do not have interactive account on the Linux servers. They cannot use
sa-learn or any other Linux tools.
It could be fine if they could automatically
Jerome Delamarche wrote:
Hi,
I'm configuring SA and I'm looking for an easy way for the end users to
improve their own Bayesian filters.
Users do not have interactive account on the Linux servers. They cannot use
sa-learn or any other Linux tools.
It could be fine if they could automatically
Running the sa-stats.pl version 0.9 that produces a chart with stats on
what rules are hit for spam and ham most frequently, I notice that of
all 13,411 autolearns performed, every one of them was for spam. Ham has
0 messages autolearned. Wouldn't, for example, a message that comes in
and has been
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Yette wrote:
| Running the sa-stats.pl version 0.9 that produces a chart with stats on
| what rules are hit for spam and ham most frequently, I notice that of
| all 13,411 autolearns performed, every one of them was for spam. Ham has
| 0
I'm going to guess that whitelist isn't taken into consideration.
-12 for autolearning of ham is pretty extreme, I'm not surprised you
aren't seeing any autolearning. The default is .1
On Aug 19, 2005, at 1:24 PM, Matthew Yette wrote:
Running the sa-stats.pl version 0.9 that produces a
: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Ham not auto-learning?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Yette wrote:
| Running the sa-stats.pl version 0.9 that produces a chart with stats
| on what rules are hit for spam and ham most frequently, I notice that
| of all 13,411
Paul Boven p.boven at chello.nl writes:
Yes, they're forwarding the messages as attachements, and yes, I'm
stripping them out of the message/rfc822 attachements before feeding
them to Bayes. And in all the tests I've done so far this seems to work,
but now that we've upgraded to SA3.0.2 I
Greg Abbas wrote:
Paul Boven p.boven at chello.nl writes:
Yes, they're forwarding the messages as attachements, and yes, I'm
stripping them out of the message/rfc822 attachements before feeding
them to Bayes. And in all the tests I've done so far this seems to work,
but now that we've
Hi everyone,
There seem to be some learning-problems with our Bayes database which
I'm trying to track down.
Given a particular spam-message that got auto-trained as ham, then
re-trained as spam, I would like to be able to do the following:
1.) Make sure whether it's in the Bayes database or
Paul Boven wrote:
My problem is that I have end-users that are basically claiming 'the
more I send to the relearn-address, the lower the Bayes score seems to
be getting.' The included headers seem to support that claim, so I
really want to dig a bit deeper into the whole setup.
That there
Hi,
I'm new to spamassassin. I installed it on a Solaris 9 system, and it
works fine.
But there is a thing I don't understand, I configured the auto-learning,
but when I run spamd it doesn't create the bayes_* files.
If I run sa-learn, then the files are created.
How can I know if auto-learning
I
saw an article a while back about some DJs who were using perl as a mixing tool
by writing perl code that edited itself while it ran in a loop. I thought this
was kind of cool.
I
studied AI at university, and remember a good bit of discussion regarding feedback systems.
So,
to combine
@spamassassin.apache.orgSubject: Potential
new auto-learning strategy
I
saw an article a while back about some DJs who were using perl as a mixing
tool by writing perl code that edited itself while it ran in a loop. I thought
this was kind of cool.
I
studied AI at university, and remember a good
day :( ). If there are other people keen on doing this then maybe we can get a collaboration going.
R
From: Chris Santerre
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 March 2005
15:16To: Gray, Richard;
users@spamassassin.apache.orgSubject: RE: Potential new auto-learning
strategy
There has
been
Message-
From: Richard Ozer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21 February 2005 21:58
To: Paul J. Smith
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Auto learning
I had a similar issue and noticed that my bayes database files did not have the
proper
owner or permissions. That prevented auto
.
From: Andy Jezierski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 February 2005 15:19
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Auto learning
Paul J. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/22/2005 01:41:28
AM
the help!
-Original Message-
From: Richard Ozer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 February 2005 15:19
To: Paul J. Smith
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Auto learning
Can you post your local.cf?
Paul J. Smith wrote:
Still nothing. I set the owner on the bayes
Still setting up
spamassassin. I've got it running and auto learning is enabled. It's
been running all yesterday and over night. I can see it has tried to auto
learn a lot of ham/spam and I've fed it a load of spam as well. Bayes
doesn't seem to have kicked in though and if I do a sa-learn
I had a similar issue and noticed that my bayes database files did not have the proper
owner or permissions. That prevented auto learning from functioning.
RO
Paul J. Smith wrote:
Still setting up spamassassin. I've got it running and auto learning is
enabled. It's been running all yesterday
@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Auto learning
I had a similar issue and noticed that my bayes database files did not have the
proper
owner or permissions. That prevented auto learning from functioning.
RO
Paul J. Smith wrote:
Still setting up spamassassin. I've got it running and auto learning
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
