On 06.12.22 09:09, DEMBLANS Mathieu wrote:
If I understand well the configuration, the USER_IN_BLACKLIST_TO test doesn't
use the bayes autolearn system, am I right ?
60_welcomelist.cf:tflags USER_IN_BLACKLIST_TO userconf nice
noautolearn
yes
If I am, how can I do if I
Hi,
If I understand well the configuration, the USER_IN_BLACKLIST_TO test doesn't
use the bayes autolearn system, am I right ?
If I am, how can I do if I want it to learn message that match this test ?
Force the tflag in local.cf ?
I use the USER_IN_BLACKLIST_TO as a kind of honeypot so all mail
On 2022-06-14 13:39:29 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 14.06.22 um 13:36 schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> > When? The message has autolearn=no, so it wasn't trained when
> > passed via SpamAssassin while it was received. Then it was in
> > my main mailbox, where there's no traini
) on joooj.vinc17.net
> > X-Spam-Level:
> > X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.9 required=5.0
> > tests=BAYES_50,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,
> > HTML_MESSAGE,KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS,MIME_HTML_ONLY,SPF_HELO_NEUTRAL,
> > SPF_NEUTRAL,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_BLACK,YOUR_D
,KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS,MIME_HTML_ONLY,SPF_HELO_NEUTRAL,
SPF_NEUTRAL,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_BLACK,YOUR_DELIVERY_ADDRESS
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Language: en
Since it has autolearn=no, I assume that it wasn't learnt as spam.
So I piped it to "sa-learn -
On 2021-09-22 at 05:19:48 UTC-0400 (Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:19:48 +0200)
Bert Van de Poel
is rumored to have said:
I for one have no idea how I would submit a fix to SA once I've
written it, to give a concrete example. I'm guessing I just paste the
patch to a Bugzilla comment and hope someone
On 9/22/2021 8:11 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
So I'd recommend a different take. Autolearn is an abomination we
never should have published. It is, in effect, a switch to allow a
inherent bias in the modelling to grow and continue.
On 22.09.21 10:39, Jared Hall wrote:
Agreed, predictable
On 9/22/2021 8:11 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Morning all,
So I'd recommend a different take. Autolearn is an abomination we
never should have published. It is, in effect, a switch to allow a
inherent bias in the modelling to grow and continue.
Agreed, predictable Garbage Out (FP
On 21.09.21 13:11, Matt Corallo wrote:
I recently noticed my bayes was rarely matching any spam, and it turns
out this was due to autolearn=ham'ing occurring on lots of list
traffic that I only occasionally read, some of which was blatant spam.
Sadly, list traffic can be pretty hard
On 2021-09-22 14:11, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Morning all,
So I'd recommend a different take. Autolearn is an abomination we
never should have published. It is, in effect, a switch to allow a
inherent bias in the modelling to grow and continue.
Disable autolearn, wipe your Bayes store
Morning all,
So I'd recommend a different take. Autolearn is an abomination we never
should have published. It is, in effect, a switch to allow a inherent bias
in the modelling to grow and continue.
Disable autolearn, wipe your Bayes store, and manually train from hand
classified ham and spam
On Tue, 2021-09-21 at 18:57 -0700, Loren Wilton wrote:
>
> Well, from the few I've seen, they all seem to have a relatively
> constant structure. Someone pointed you to a plugin that is at least
> dealing in this having a better suggestion.
>
> While I wrote a little Perl a decade ago I've
54, Henrik K wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:45:43AM +0200, Bert Van de Poel wrote:
I hope I'm not passing on too much of a negative message. It would be great
of someone had a look at the Bayes autolearn code. I think it would be a
great service to the community!
The fact is that there really
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:45:43AM +0200, Bert Van de Poel wrote:
>
> I hope I'm not passing on too much of a negative message. It would be great
> of someone had a look at the Bayes autolearn code. I think it would be a
> great service to the community!
The fact is that there reall
ing on too much of a negative message. It would be
great of someone had a look at the Bayes autolearn code. I think it
would be a great service to the community!
Bert
On 22/09/2021 03:29, Matt Corallo wrote:
On 9/21/21 18:01, Loren Wilton wrote:
None of these seem to accomplish disablin
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 06:57:22PM -0700, Loren Wilton wrote:
>
> I guess one thing you might be able to do is implement a tflags flag of
> absolutely_no_autolearn or some such that would force-disable the autolearn
> decision if the rule had hit, but that might be something tha
a plugin or from the main SA
code, but I'm pretty sure it is only called if an internal 'autolearn' token
is true for the message. If you make a plugin that runs late in the rule
evaluation it should be able to look at the score and rule hits and items in
the message header and body and decide
On 9/21/21 18:01, Loren Wilton wrote:
None of these seem to accomplish disabling learning for a specific rule
I think the problem is that I believe Bayes works off of the total score, and probably only sees
rule names as more tokens, if it sees them at all. If it indeed works off the total
None of these seem to accomplish disabling learning for a specific rule
I think the problem is that I believe Bayes works off of the total score,
and probably only sees rule names as more tokens, if it sees them at all. If
it indeed works off the total score, about all you can do is somehow
On 9/21/21 15:53, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2021-09-21 22:11, Matt Corallo wrote:
"tflags MAILING_LIST_MULTI noautolearn" doesn't seem like quite what I
want, it just reduces the score used to decide whether to learn.
There's some old bugzilla mentions asking for this feature, but it
seems the
On 2021-09-21 22:11, Matt Corallo wrote:
"tflags MAILING_LIST_MULTI noautolearn" doesn't seem like quite what I
want, it just reduces the score used to decide whether to learn.
There's some old bugzilla mentions asking for this feature, but it
seems the response was "write a plugin". Is there a
Hi!
I recently noticed my bayes was rarely matching any spam, and it turns out this was due to
autolearn=ham'ing occurring on lots of list traffic that I only occasionally read, some of which was
blatant spam. Sadly, list traffic can be pretty hard to categorize and ends up getting through due
On Mon, 10 May 2021 20:39:31 +0200
Bert Van de Poel wrote:
> Based on what I've read, I agree that this is indeed a bug (or
> actually several). I've filed the following bug reports:
> https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7904 (missing body
> types, as mentioned by RW)
>
Dear Loren,
Thank you very much for your email. Based on your message I could deduce
there were earlier messages (which I then read through a web archive).
For some unexplained reason I never received the previous 3 responses to
my email. I hope the university network isn't randomly
so you don't have points from body rules.
your mentioned URI_DEOBFU_INSTR is a meta rule:
meta URI_DEOBFU_INSTR __URI_DEOBFU_INSTR && !__MSGID_OK_HOST
so maybe it's not considered.
They are treated as header, or ignored if marked as net.
I think a bug report should be submitted for this.
On Sun, 9 May 2021 20:03:27 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> so you don't have points from body rules.
>
> your mentioned URI_DEOBFU_INSTR is a meta rule:
>
> meta URI_DEOBFU_INSTR __URI_DEOBFU_INSTR && !__MSGID_OK_HOST
>
> so maybe it's not considered.
They are treated as header, or
On 09.05.21 04:17, Bert Van de Poel wrote:
Dear fellow Spamassassin users,
I recently noticed that quite a lot of spam emails with high scores
weren't marked for Bayes autolearning. While some senders and
receivers were a common match, explaining why autolearn was nog, there
was no clear
On Sun, 9 May 2021 04:17:26 +0200
Bert Van de Poel wrote:
> Within the same realm, I'm also wondering whether these expected
> numbers for body and header can be tweaked and if so, how.
You can create a meta-rule for definite spam and set:
tflags autolearn_force
a hit on any rule with
Dear fellow Spamassassin users,
I recently noticed that quite a lot of spam emails with high scores
weren't marked for Bayes autolearning. While some senders and receivers
were a common match, explaining why autolearn was nog, there was no
clear explanation for other cases. I therefore put
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019, RW wrote:
If you are in a position to train manually, I think it's best to
turn-off auto-learning.
+1
Auto-learn is primarily for large sites with a diverse user base (e.g. an
ISP).
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 18:31:18 +0200
Philipp Ewald wrote:
> First thanks for help, i will train them with current mail.
>
> my Amavis configuration found my Attachment and score this with SPAM
> score 999 but auto learn ignore this
>
...
> did i miss something? can someone help me?
>
>
-Spam-Status: Yes, score=996.7 tagged_above=- required=5
tests=[AV:NSFW.UNOFFICIAL=999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Test with GTUBE:
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Score: 997.7
X-Spam-Level:
X
Reio Remma skrev den 2018-06-12 09:34:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.32 tagged_above=-3 required=3 tests=[
BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1,
NO_DNS_FOR_FROM=1, TXREP=1.719] autolearn=ham
> On 12 Jun 2018, at 17:11, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
>> On 12 Jun 2018, at 3:34, Reio Remma wrote:
>> I just noticed *autolearn=ham* for a message with a positive spam score. Is
>> that normal?
>> X-Spam-Flag: NO
>> X-Spam-Score: 2.32
>> X-Sp
On 12 Jun 2018, at 3:34, Reio Remma wrote:
Hello!
I just noticed *autolearn=ham* for a message with a positive spam
score. Is that normal?
No, but it is also not especially remarkable. The final operative score
is not the score that is used to determine autolearning
Hello!
I just noticed *autolearn=ham* for a message with a positive spam score.
Is that normal?
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam is set to a negative figure in the
SpamAssassin config file.
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.32
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.32 tagged_above=-3
_MSPIKE_WL,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,TRACKER_ID,T_DKIM_INVALID,T_HK_NAME_FM_MR_MRS
scantime=7.1,size=4797,user=debian-spamd,uid=110,required_score=2.3,rhost=::1,raddr=::1,rport=36112,mid=<caf9ik-r8aop_dkwbqypgsorthk4gydjhvecidsartt_2csi...@mail.gmail.com>,autolearn=spam
autolearn_force=no,shortcircuit=no*
and
Em 19/01/2018 11:33, Bill Cole escreveu:
These show Bayes learning by the user debian-spamd.
BUT:
root@mailer:~# sa-learn --dump magic
This checks the Bayes DB for the user root.
root != debian-spamd
You need to either run sa-learn as debian-spamd (possibly infeasible)
or make root use
IM_INVALID,T_HK_NAME_FM_MR_MRS
scantime=7.1,size=4797,user=debian-spamd,uid=110,required_score=2.3,rhost=::1,raddr=::1,rport=36112,mid=<caf9ik-r8aop_dkwbqypgsorthk4gydjhvecidsartt_2csi...@mail.gmail.com>,autolearn=spam
autolearn_force=no,shortcircuit=no*
and: *spamd: result: . -5 -
MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,
d=[<caf9ik-r8aop_dkwbqypgsorthk4gydjhvecidsartt_2csi...@mail.gmail.com>](<mailto:caf9ik-r8aop_dkwbqypgsorthk4gydjhvecidsartt_2csi...@mail.gmail.com>),
autolearn=spam autolearn_force=no,shortcircuit=no**
and: **spamd: result: . -5 -
MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIK
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 11:12:53 -0300
Heiler Bemerguy wrote:
> >
> I had cleared bayes database with --clear some days ago and had
> restarted spamassassin service. Today I saw some autolearning on
> mail.log, but all the "dump magic" values are still 0
>
>
> root@mailer:~# sa-learn --dump magic
bian-spamd,uid=110,required_score=2.3,rhost=::1,raddr=::1,rport=36112,mid=<caf9ik-r8aop_dkwbqypgsorthk4gydjhvecidsartt_2csi...@mail.gmail.com>,autolearn=spam
autolearn_force=no,shortcircuit=no*
and: *spamd: result: . -5 -
MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSP
TRACKER_ID,T_DKIM_INVALID,T_HK_NAME_FM_MR_MRS
scantime=7.1,size=4797,user=debian-spamd,uid=110,required_score=2.3,rhost=::1,raddr=::1,rport=36112,mid=<caf9ik-r8aop_dkwbqypgsorthk4gydjhvecidsartt_2csi...@mail.gmail.com>,autolearn=spam
autolearn_force=no,shortcircuit=no
and: spa
On Wed, 10 May 2017, David B Funk wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2017, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2017, David B Funk wrote:
> Is there any way to use Bayes autolearn in general but prevent it from
> learning specific messages?
>
> I have a specific source of messages (Office-
On Wed, 10 May 2017, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2017, David B Funk wrote:
Is there any way to use Bayes autolearn in general but prevent it from
learning specific messages?
I have a specific source of messages (Office-365) which I would like to
prevent from being autolearn (with out
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:33:44 -0500 (CDT)
David B Funk wrote:
> Is there any way to use Bayes autolearn in general but prevent it
> from learning specific messages?
>
> I have a specific source of messages (Office-365) which I would like
> to prevent from being autolearn (with o
On Wed, 10 May 2017, David B Funk wrote:
Is there any way to use Bayes autolearn in general but prevent it from
learning specific messages?
I have a specific source of messages (Office-365) which I would like to
prevent from being autolearn (with out scoring them as spam).
I still want
Is there any way to use Bayes autolearn in general but prevent it from learning
specific messages?
I have a specific source of messages (Office-365) which I would like to prevent
from being autolearn (with out scoring them as spam).
I still want those messages to be SA scored using
Hi,
I had looked into autolearn a few months ago. A message will only be
automatically learned as spam, if
* the message has not been learned before, and
* the overall score is above bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam, and
* it scores more than 3 points from “body” rules alone, and
* it scores
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Marc Stürmer wrote:
Am 2017-01-09 22:30, schrieb L A Walsh:
I have:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -5.0
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 10.0
In order for autolearn to work you need at least 200 trained messages in the
ham and spam category. If the filter doesn't
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:37:54 +0100
Marc Stürmer wrote:
> Am 2017-01-09 22:30, schrieb L A Walsh:
> > I have:
> >
> > bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -5.0
> > bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 10.0
>
> In order for autolearn to work you need at least 200 train
Marc Stürmer wrote:
Am 2017-01-09 22:30, schrieb L A Walsh:
I have:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -5.0
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 10.0
In order for autolearn to work you need at least 200 trained messages
in the ham and spam category. If the filter doesn't know enough mails
yet
Am 2017-01-09 22:30, schrieb L A Walsh:
I have:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -5.0
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 10.0
In order for autolearn to work you need at least 200 trained messages in
the ham and spam category. If the filter doesn't know enough mails yet
it will state
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 15:01:27 -0800
Linda Walsh wrote:
> John Hardin wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, L A Walsh wrote:
> >> I have:
> >>bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -5.0
> >>bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 10.0
> >> in my user_prefs.
On 1/9/2017 6:01 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, L A Walsh wrote:
I have:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -5.0
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 10.0
in my user_prefs. When I get a message though, I see autolearn being
set to 'no':
X-Spam-Status: Yes
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, L A Walsh wrote:
I have:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -5.0
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 10.0
in my user_prefs. When I get a message though, I see autolearn being
set to 'no':
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=18.7 req=4.8..autolearn
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, L A Walsh wrote:
I have:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -5.0
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 10.0
in my user_prefs.
When I get a message though, I see autolearn being set to 'no':
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=18.7 required=4.8 tests=BAYES_99,BAYES_999
I have:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -5.0
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 10.0
in my user_prefs.
When I get a message though, I see autolearn being set to 'no':
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=18.7 required=4.8 tests=BAYES_99,BAYES_999,
FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2,FREEMAIL_FROM
: **
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=1000.0 required=3.0
tests=GTUBE,NO_RECEIVED,
NO_RELAYS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
X-Spam-Report: ++
* 1000 GTUBE BODY: Generic Test for Unsolicited Bulk
=GTUBE,NO_RECEIVED,
NO_RELAYS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
X-Spam-Report: ++
* 1000 GTUBE BODY: Generic Test for Unsolicited Bulk Email
* -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
gt; > X-Spam-Level: **
> > X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=1000.0 required=3.0 tests=GTUBE,NO_RECEIVED,
> > NO_RELAYS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
> > X-Spam-Report: ++
> > * 1000 GTUBE
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
uto-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-points=0, learned-points=0
nov 5 15:47:54.521 [3855] dbg: learn: auto-learn? no: scored as spam but
autolearn wanted ham
nov 5 15:47:54.
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,
> >
855] 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
This line reports the score used to decide which direction to autolearn.
There are a number of conditions that mean
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
X-Spam-Report: ++
* 1000 GTUBE BODY: Generic Test for Unsolicited Bulk Email
* -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
* -0.0 NO_RECEIVED Informational: message
On 4/21/2015 11:48 PM, David B Funk wrote:
I've got some home-grown rules that I trust to which have added
tflags autolearn_force
Recently I've seen some spam that hit those rules and racked up enough
points that they should have auto-learned. But the scoring analysis
explicitly says autolearn
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:48:46 -0500 (CDT)
David B Funk wrote:
is the autolearn_force being ignored because of the initial BAYES_00
score?
Yes, a Bayes point in the opposite direction prevents auto-training.
All the force flag does is override the 3+3 rule.
Is there a
I've got some home-grown rules that I trust to which have added
tflags autolearn_force
Recently I've seen some spam that hit those rules and racked up enough
points that they should have auto-learned. But the scoring analysis
explicitly says autolearn=no autolearn_force=no.
What's going on here
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:46:28 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
according to the documentation *it is* a bug:
That's just a wiki entry.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SiteWideBayesSetup
Please note this directory needs to be RWX for all users that
SpamAssassin will be executed as, or R-X
according to the documentation *it is* a bug:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SiteWideBayesSetup
Please note this directory needs to be RWX for all users that
SpamAssassin will be executed as, or R-X if autolearning and automatic
expiry are disabled
bayes_auto_expire 0
bayes_auto_learn 0
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:58:56 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
* first: it is a bug to write/lock when auto_expire / auto_learn is
off
As I said, it's not a bug. The updates are done in case you want to
expire later with sa-learn --force-expire.
Auto-expiry means performing the expiry
On 28.01.15 01:03, Reindl Harald wrote:
if understand you correctly we agree that there is no reason /var
can't be mounted read-only?
I do not agree. The whole point of /var is to contain varying data and
mounting it read-only defeats the whole purpose of /var.
I see following possibilities
On 27.01.15 18:49, Reindl Harald wrote:
the intention of this *global bayes* is *not* to learn or expire
anything - the implemented remove from bayes method is just remove
the message from the corpus folder and type sa-learn.sh rebuild
I believe it's much more effective to expire old tokens
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.01.2015 um 10:18 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 28.01.15 01:03, Reindl Harald wrote:
if understand you correctly we agree that there is no reason /var
can't be mounted read-only?
I do not agree. The whole point of /var is to contain
/var can't be mounted read-only does *not* suggest that
* the initial post makes it pretty clear
* it was even quoted by fantomas first reply on this thread
* i made that clear multiple times
Weitergeleitete Nachricht
Betreff: Re: why does SA without autolearn need bayes read
Am 29.01.2015 um 10:18 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 28.01.15 01:03, Reindl Harald wrote:
if understand you correctly we agree that there is no reason /var
can't be mounted read-only?
I do not agree. The whole point of /var is to contain varying data and
mounting it read-only defeats
On 1/28/2015 9:04 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
my main point is that i don't want the locking IO when nothing then
the self developed maintainance scripts for the bayes has a business
to write anything there - it should be only read and in the best case
from each spamc-forker only opened once in
Am 28.01.2015 um 12:11 schrieb Martin Gregorie:
On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 16:40 -0800, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Reindl Harald wrote:
if understand you correctly we agree that there is no reason /var can't be
mounted read-only?
Other than the historical practice that /var is
On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 16:40 -0800, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Reindl Harald wrote:
if understand you correctly we agree that there is no reason /var can't be
mounted read-only?
Other than the historical practice that /var is intended to contain
varying data, and that
Am 28.01.2015 um 15:46 schrieb Axb:
On 01/28/2015 03:18 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/28/2015 9:04 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
my main point is that i don't want the locking IO when nothing then
the self developed maintainance scripts for the bayes has a business
to write anything there - it
On 01/28/2015 04:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
is AFAIK relevant in context of sa-learn to not re-train the same
messages again and again - and it has it's own bugs becaue for a few
messages it contains random parts of the message itself, fire sa-learn
on the whole corpus would add these messages
On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 15:04 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
no need for mount own partitions on recent linux systems
that's what namespaces are for and systemd has easy interfaces
Fair enough: I thought you were talking about some sort of site-wide
read-only mount, but using systemd to limit the
On 01/28/2015 03:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
* first: it is a bug to write/lock when auto_expire / auto_learn is off
bayes_seen
On 01/28/2015 03:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
* third: if you would be a smart upstream in case of a company admin
asking for a change instead write a patch you could make
a offer talking about money to include the change in the
next upstream version - we
Am 28.01.2015 um 16:39 schrieb Axb:
On 01/28/2015 03:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
* third: if you would be a smart upstream in case of a company admin
asking for a change instead write a patch you could make
a offer talking about money to include the change in the
On 01/28/2015 03:18 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/28/2015 9:04 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
my main point is that i don't want the locking IO when nothing then
the self developed maintainance scripts for the bayes has a business
to write anything there - it should be only read and in the best
On 01/28/2015 05:00 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
BTW it is not visible which users are core-developers on this list and
which are not - until now i thought you are as example
I am part of the dev team or as you say core-developers which doesn't
mean I have to be a Perl monger. There's other
Am 28.01.2015 um 16:52 schrieb Axb:
On 01/28/2015 04:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
is AFAIK relevant in context of sa-learn to not re-train the same
messages again and again - and it has it's own bugs becaue for a few
messages it contains random parts of the message itself, fire sa-learn
on the
Am 28.01.2015 um 16:24 schrieb Axb:
On 01/28/2015 03:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
* first: it is a bug to write/lock when auto_expire / auto_learn is off
bayes_seen
is AFAIK relevant in context of sa-learn to not re-train the same
messages again and again - and it has it's own bugs
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2015-01-27 13:44:
On 27.01.15 03:01, Reindl Harald wrote:
with bayes_auto_learn 0 there is no reason to lock the bayes
database and the spamd-service should be happy with
ReadOnlyDirectories=/var/lib
the bayes databaase contains not only tokens, but also
On 01/27/2015 02:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 27.01.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 27.01.15 03:01, Reindl Harald wrote:
with bayes_auto_learn 0 there is no reason to lock the bayes
database and the spamd-service should be happy with
ReadOnlyDirectories=/var/lib
the bayes
Am 27.01.2015 um 14:33 schrieb Axb:
On 01/27/2015 02:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 27.01.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 27.01.15 03:01, Reindl Harald wrote:
with bayes_auto_learn 0 there is no reason to lock the bayes
database and the spamd-service should be happy with
Am 28.01.2015 um 00:55 schrieb RW:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:49:23 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 27.01.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
nobody expires or updates anything in a hand-maintained bayes
the one you might use, but not without timestamps
the intention of this
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Reindl Harald wrote:
Setting bayes_auto_expire 0 doesn't imply the database is not going to
expired. The recommended way to expire is to turn-off auto-expiry and
expire from cron.
don't understand that completly
* bayes_auto_expire 0
* which cronjob would expire
The
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:49:23 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 27.01.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
nobody expires or updates anything in a hand-maintained bayes
the one you might use, but not without timestamps
the intention of this *global bayes* is *not* to learn or
On 27.01.15 03:01, Reindl Harald wrote:
with bayes_auto_learn 0 there is no reason to lock the bayes
database and the spamd-service should be happy with
ReadOnlyDirectories=/var/lib
the bayes databaase contains not only tokens, but also timestamps used for
expiration. That's why you need to
Am 27.01.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 27.01.15 03:01, Reindl Harald wrote:
with bayes_auto_learn 0 there is no reason to lock the bayes
database and the spamd-service should be happy with
ReadOnlyDirectories=/var/lib
the bayes databaase contains not only tokens, but also
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Reindl Harald wrote:
nobody expires or updates anything in a hand-maintained bayes
Just amessage from nobody (important) apparently
==John ff
Am 27.01.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 27.01.15 03:01, Reindl Harald wrote:
with bayes_auto_learn 0 there is no reason to lock the bayes
database and the spamd-service should be happy with
ReadOnlyDirectories=/var/lib
the bayes databaase contains not only tokens, but also
1 - 100 of 466 matches
Mail list logo
