Ian http://pastebin.com/dsqaVA9Z
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:50:20 +,
David Jones djo...@ena.com wrote:
David This hit DCC_CHECK, BAYES_50, CRM114, BOGOFILTER and KAM_EU rules
David and would have been blocked on my SA 3.4.0 servers.
On 25.08.14 15:02, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Isn't it a bit odd
On 25.08.14 19:06, Reindl Harald wrote:
you misunderstood me - whatever i did before and how the config looks
like is not the problem - i was alerted by the dramatic change after
sa-update last night wwith no other changes
Scores usually drop when many FPs appear. When some scores lower,
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Aug 26 00:01:32 mail-gw spamd[6836]: spamd: result: Y 5 -
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:10:23 +0200,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
Ian Isn't it a bit odd that SA has rules for all these other Bayes
Ian powered backends? Why not give a bit more weight to its own Bayes
Ian instead, rather than make users forage for other tools that do
Ian
Am 26.08.2014 um 08:54 schrieb Matthias Leisi:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Aug 26 00:01:32 mail-gw spamd[6836]: spamd: result: Y 5 -
Am 26.08.2014 09:30, schrieb Ian Zimmerman:
Apparently not. So, I have to rephrase: Isn't it a bit odd to use
these external rules? :)
No, I don't think that its odd to use other statistical filters than the
SA Bayes.
CRM114 uses a completely different algorithem, building statistics not
found it - look at the bottom
the other thread where i try to find out why spam messages don't
get [SPAM] in the subject (still unsolved) turned out that
sa-update obviously changed the permissions of the folder
updates_spamassassin_org to 750 instead 755
after fixing that it is again above 7
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
ADVANCE_FEE_4_NEW,ADVANCE_FEE_4_NEW_MONEY,ADVANCE_FEE_5_NEW,ADVANCE_FEE_5_NEW_MONEY,ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_99,BAYES_999,DEAR_SOMETHING,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FREEMAIL_FROM,LOTS_OF_MONEY,T_MONEY_PERCENT,URG_BIZ
Am 26.08.2014 um 10:52 schrieb Matthias Leisi:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
On 08/26/2014 11:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
i am at building the new MTA which will replace a commercial
spamfilter appliance and currently i am at training byes and
building admin backends
* postscreen with RBL/DNSWL weight
* PTR filters
* subject filters
* attachemnt extensions
* ClamAV
Am 26.08.2014 um 11:30 schrieb Axb:
On 08/26/2014 11:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
i am at building the new MTA which will replace a commercial
spamfilter appliance and currently i am at training byes and
building admin backends
* postscreen with RBL/DNSWL weight
* PTR filters
* subject
From: Ian Zimmerman i...@buug.org
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 5:02 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: drop of score after update tonight
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:50:20 +,
David Jones djo...@ena.com wrote:
Ian I definitely have
Hi
i am at setup a new mailgateway and playing around
with spamassassin-3.4.0 and spamass-milter which
looks both well - but after the update tonight my
testmessage goes down from 7.5 to 5.3
that's one of the very high rated on a Barracuda
appliance downloaded to a folder and only posting
the
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Hi
i am at setup a new mailgateway and playing around
with spamassassin-3.4.0 and spamass-milter which
looks both well - but after the update tonight my
testmessage goes down from 7.5 to 5.3
5.0 is still the score for spam. Rather than focusing on
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.08.2014 um 16:06 schrieb John Hardin:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
i am at setup a new mailgateway and playing around
with spamassassin-3.4.0 and spamass-milter which
looks both well - but after the update tonight my
testmessage
Am 25.08.2014 um 17:43 schrieb John Hardin:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.08.2014 um 16:06 schrieb John Hardin:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
i am at setup a new mailgateway and playing around
with spamassassin-3.4.0 and spamass-milter which
looks both well -
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 17:47 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
yes and that is one which the currently existing
Barracuda Spamfirewall scored with around 20 and
grabbed from the backend there for testings
the plain content i attached as ZIP (what made it to the listg)
is used for testing by just
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
the plain content i attached as ZIP (what made it to the listg) is used
for testing by just copy the content to a formmailer or in a new
plaintext message in TB point directly to the test MX
The massage body by itself usually isn't enough to tell
Am 25.08.2014 um 18:28 schrieb John Hardin:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
the plain content i attached as ZIP (what made it to the listg) is used for
testing by just copy the content to a
formmailer or in a new plaintext message in TB point directly to the test MX
The
--As of August 25, 2014 7:06:32 PM +0200, Reindl Harald is alleged to have
said:
masscheck ties to ensure spams score at least 5 points, but doesn't
care beyond that
yes, but given that the intention is to flag message above
5 with [SPAM] and reject messages above 7 which is the
intention
Am 25.08.2014 um 19:35 schrieb Daniel Staal:
--As of August 25, 2014 7:06:32 PM +0200, Reindl Harald is alleged to have
said:
masscheck ties to ensure spams score at least 5 points, but doesn't
care beyond that
yes, but given that the intention is to flag message above
5 with [SPAM]
Given (a) you disabled RBL checks in SA
On 25.08.14 19:06, Reindl Harald wrote:
the reason for that is that postfix in front already does a damned
good job with RBL's
since SA uses deep header scanning in many times, which postfix does not
(afaik), it's always better to NOT disable RBL's as
Am 25.08.2014 um 20:41 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
Given (a) you disabled RBL checks in SA
On 25.08.14 19:06, Reindl Harald wrote:
the reason for that is that postfix in front already does a damned
good job with RBL's
since SA uses deep header scanning in many times, which postfix
I definitely have FNs today (about 10 by now today, normally 0).
Looks like some/all RBLs tests are not working. I have not changed my
configuration at all.
Sample here:
http://pastebin.com/dsqaVA9Z
--
Please *no* private copies of mailing list or newsgroup messages.
Local Variables:
From: Ian Zimmerman i...@buug.org
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:28 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: drop of score after update tonight
I definitely have FNs today (about 10 by now today, normally 0).
Looks like some/all RBLs
--As of August 25, 2014 7:49:39 PM +0200, Reindl Harald is alleged to have
said:
Am 25.08.2014 um 19:35 schrieb Daniel Staal:
--As of August 25, 2014 7:06:32 PM +0200, Reindl Harald is alleged to
have said:
masscheck ties to ensure spams score at least 5 points, but doesn't
care beyond
first - thank you for your feedback
SA is a new beat to me
Am 25.08.2014 um 22:00 schrieb Daniel Staal:
--As of August 25, 2014 7:49:39 PM +0200, Reindl Harald is alleged to have
said:
Am 25.08.2014 um 19:35 schrieb Daniel Staal:
--As of August 25, 2014 7:06:32 PM +0200, Reindl Harald is
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:50:20 +,
David Jones djo...@ena.com wrote:
Ian I definitely have FNs today (about 10 by now today, normally 0).
Ian Looks like some/all RBLs tests are not working. I have not changed
Ian my configuration at all.
Ian Sample here:
Ian http://pastebin.com/dsqaVA9Z
Am 26.08.2014 um 00:02 schrieb Ian Zimmerman:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:50:20 +,
David Jones djo...@ena.com wrote:
Ian I definitely have FNs today (about 10 by now today, normally 0).
Ian Looks like some/all RBLs tests are not working. I have not changed
Ian my configuration at all.
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 00:08 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
the bayes=1.00 below makes me wonder because around 1000 careful
selected ham/spam messages for training - IMHO that should be more in
such clear cases
Please do read the docs or at least the rule's description (hint, see
the BAYES_99
30 matches
Mail list logo
