Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:55 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: rules better than bayes?
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:55 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: rules better than bayes?
>
> Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
>
Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:49 PM
To: Chris Lear
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: rules better than bayes?
Chris Lear wrote:
* Jim Maul wrote (11/01/06 17:48):
[...]
i dont
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:49 PM
> To: Chris Lear
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: rules better than bayes?
>
> Chris Lear wrote:
> > * Jim Maul wrote (11/01/06 17:4
Chris Lear wrote:
* Jim Maul wrote (11/01/06 17:48):
[...]
i dont have any sa-stats.pl on my system, and i recall some confusion
with different scripts named the same thing so im not sure. If you can
provide me with a location to obtain the sa-stats.pl script you are
talking about i'll try to
jdow wrote:
From: "Jim Maul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Chris Santerre wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: jo3 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 2:28 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: rules better than bayes
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 10:50 AM 1/10/2006, Chris Santerre wrote:
I have long said that IMHO, I do not think bayes is worth it. Left
unattended, it isn't as good. A simple rule can take out a lot of spam.
Some may say rule writing is more complicated then training bayes.
From: "Jim Maul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Chris Santerre wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: jo3 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 2:28 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: rules better than bayes?
>
>
>
Hello William,
Tuesday, January 10, 2006, 11:37:35 AM, you wrote:
>> But the 4 letters that matter with Bayes are:
>>YMMV
WS> Isn't that an OTCBB Ticker symbol? I heard they're about to go
WS> through the _roof_!!
Your Milage May Vary, Inc. I hear they're cornering the market on
auto
Hello Chris,
Tuesday, January 10, 2006, 7:50:45 AM, you wrote:
CS> This is going to sound like tooting our own horn, but so be
CS> it. Before SARE, Bayes was cool. After SARE, I see no need.
Sorry Chris, as one Ninja to another, Bayes is your (well, my) friend.
I'll agree that with SA and netwo
From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-Original Message-
From: jo3 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
This is an observation, please take it in the spirit in which it is
intended, it is not meant to be flame bait.
After using spamassassin for six solid months, it seems to me
that th
Chris Santerre a écrit :
>
> I have long said that IMHO, I do not think bayes is worth it. Left
> unattended, it isn't as good. A simple rule can take out a lot of spam. Some
> may say rule writing is more complicated then training bayes. Maybe. Not so
> much the rule writing, but the figuring ou
Andrew Donkin wrote:
> Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>if [ -f /var/spool/mail/spamtrap ]; then
>> echo learning spam mailbox - spamtrap
>> mv /var/spool/mail/spamtrap .
>> /usr/bin/sa-learn --spam --mbox spamtrap
>> rm spam/spamtrap.alearn5.gz
>> mv spam/spamtrap.alearn4.gz spam/s
Andrew Donkin wrote:
Jim Maul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NOTE: to operate in this fashion i believe it is imperative that you
change the autolearn thresholds. The defaults are dangerous! (atleast
in 2.64 which i still run). I have mine set as such:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -0.1
ba
Good evening, Justin, all,
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Justin Mason wrote:
-(Modified PGP heading)-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler writes:
At 10:50 AM 1/10/2006, Chris Santerre wrote:
I have long said that IMHO, I do not think bayes is worth it. Left
unattended, it isn't as good. A simple rule ca
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler writes:
> At 10:50 AM 1/10/2006, Chris Santerre wrote:
>
> >I have long said that IMHO, I do not think bayes is worth it. Left
> >unattended, it isn't as good. A simple rule can take out a lot of spam.
> >Some may say rule writing is m
Bayes would be much good if not for the rules to create a basic compass
as to what is spam and not spam. The rules in a large part is what makes
bayes work.
> Im not matt, but running a very similar setup which works
> very well so i thought i would comment also. Im running a
> single sitewide database.
> All mail is processed under my spamd user.
OK, that's basically what I'm doing too.
>
> I rarely train manually as well.
> NOTE: to oper
> Erm, that really shouldn't affect the bayes autolearner..
> perhaps you are
> thinking of the AWL? I don't run the AWL for this very reason.
>
Oh yeah. I was thinking of the AWL. NM.
> The problem is this requires some customization. This can't
> be a default setup
> of SA as the "catch
Aaron Grewell wrote:
The trouble I had with the autolearner was that some spammers would send
innocuous mail through to raise their scores until Bayes decided they
were ok, then start spamming. That was a couple of versions back, does
that sort of thing no longer work?
Are you sure this is Bay
Aaron Grewell wrote:
Hi Matt, I'm interested in how your setup compares to mine. I also find
Bayes very useful, but I haven't gotten it to work as well as what
you've described.
Interesting.. For me, BAYES_99 is right between SURBL and
URIBL in terms of
hits. (And has 98.91% of URIBL's total
Aaron Grewell wrote:
> Hi Matt, I'm interested in how your setup compares to mine. I also find
> Bayes very useful, but I haven't gotten it to work as well as what
> you've described.
>
>
>>Interesting.. For me, BAYES_99 is right between SURBL and
>>URIBL in terms of
>>hits. (And has 98.91% of
Hi Matt, I'm interested in how your setup compares to mine. I also find
Bayes very useful, but I haven't gotten it to work as well as what
you've described.
>
> Interesting.. For me, BAYES_99 is right between SURBL and
> URIBL in terms of
> hits. (And has 98.91% of URIBL's total hits) I find i
At 10:50 AM 1/10/2006, Chris Santerre wrote:
I have long said that IMHO, I do not think bayes is worth it. Left
unattended, it isn't as good. A simple rule can take out a lot of spam.
Some may say rule writing is more complicated then training bayes. Maybe.
Not so much the rule writing, but t
Title: RE: rules better than bayes?
> I always feel i have to point out the flip side to this just to offer
> another opinion.
And I love ya for it ;) (In the kind of brotherly love one man can feel for another)
> While i certainly dont have a NEED for bayes at our
>
Chris Santerre wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: jo3 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 2:28 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: rules better than bayes?
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This is an observation, please take i
Title: RE: rules better than bayes?
> -Original Message-
> From: jo3 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 2:28 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: rules better than bayes?
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This is an observation, p
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 1:52 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: rules better than bayes?
Sorry for the confusion, I do use a site wide bayes database, I thought the
information I sent below was the site wide information the system uses to
access the bayes dat
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 2:05 PM
> To: Matthew Yette
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: rules better than bayes?
>
> [snip]
>
> I also strongly recommend en
mails
coming in. Boy am I stupid.
Thanks
Robert
-Original Message-
From: Robert Bartlett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 1:52 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: rules better than bayes?
Sorry for the confusion, I do use a site wide bayes databa
1:47 PM
To: Robert Bartlett
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: rules better than bayes?
Robert Bartlett wrote:
> This is what I have in my local.cf file:
>
> bayes_store_module Mail::SpamAssassin::BayesStore::SQL
> bayes_sql_dsn
Robert Bartlett wrote:
> This is what I have in my local.cf file:
>
> bayes_store_module Mail::SpamAssassin::BayesStore::SQL
> bayes_sql_dsnDBI:mysql:**:localhost:3306
> bayes_sql_username
> bayes_sql_password
tlett
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: rules better than bayes?
Robert Bartlett wrote:
> Interesting, I did that just to see how mine were doing and the BAYES
> one returned 0? Does that mean bayes is not being used? I have been
> feeding emails to bayes and in debug mode
Robert Bartlett wrote:
> Interesting, I did that just to see how mine were doing and the BAYES one
> returned 0? Does that mean bayes is not being used? I have been feeding
> emails to bayes and in debug mode it shows bayes being used. I am using
> bayes in a mysql. Just weird that its showing 0.
>
wrote:
> I have since taken bayes out as I get WAY better results without it.
If it doesn't work for you, don't use it. The rules and network tests
work pretty well. Especially if you add some SARE rules into the mix.
However...
> The reason this happens to me is that I get to many spam
-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 1:05 PM
To: Matthew Yette
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: rules better than bayes?
Matthew Yette wrote:
>
> Do you recommend running airmax as a supplementary ruleset with 3.1.0?
I personally h
Matthew Yette wrote:
>
> Do you recommend running airmax as a supplementary ruleset with 3.1.0?
I personally have no recommendations on it.. I've never run it.
I personally like SARE's specific, evilnumbers, random and adult rulesets.
Here's some quick grep's for hit-rates on some SARE rules I
Do you recommend running airmax as a supplementary ruleset with 3.1.0?
This is just my humble opinion, but I don't know if that's a ruleset I would
use in production for a multi-user server. A few of the rules use the
"f-word" in the rule description line, so it would go out in a verbose
repo
Matthew Yette wrote:
Correction, airmax.cf is not one single rule, it's one single FILE containing
211 rules. That's a significant difference, given that the stock spamassassin
3.1.0 has about 723 rules.
Airmax has increased the number of rules in your system by 29.1%
Do you recommend
Matt Kettler a écrit :
>
>
> Realistically, I don't know why your hit rates are so low. They shouldn't be
> so
> bad that you're only detecting 2 or 3 out of every hundred.
>
> You could have some configuration problems, but I can't tell as you've not
> told
> us anything about your system, ju
.
- Original Message -
From: "jo3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 12:27 PM
Subject: rules better than bayes?
| Hi,
|
| This is an observation, please take it in the spirit in which it is
| intended, it is not meant to be flame bait.
On 1/9/06 2:43 PM, "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> jo3 wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is an observation, please take it in the spirit in which it is
>> intended, it is not meant to be flame bait.
>>
>> After using spamassassin for six solid months, it seems to me that the
>> bayes proce
jo3 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is an observation, please take it in the spirit in which it is
> intended, it is not meant to be flame bait.
>
> After using spamassassin for six solid months, it seems to me that the
> bayes process (sa-learn [--spam | --ham]) has only very limited success
> in learning
Hi,
This is an observation, please take it in the spirit in which it is
intended, it is not meant to be flame bait.
After using spamassassin for six solid months, it seems to me that the
bayes process (sa-learn [--spam | --ham]) has only very limited success
in learning about new spam. Rega
44 matches
Mail list logo
