Title: RE: standard vs SARE rules
>
> From that I would infer that the SARE stock ruleset is the
> most effective -
> it was responsible for 5 out of 163 spams being identified.
> That leaves the
> other files I use - 70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf, 70_sare_html0.cf,
Title: RE: standard vs SARE rules
>
> WooHoo! 70_sare_stocks.cf hits my favorite number! Sorry just
> had to say
> that! 8*))
>
> And of course that means it is working good too!
>
> For those who don't know I'm the maintainer of that SARE ruleset.
Ye
pushed it over the required hits threshold. Sound good? So, out of 163
spam
messages, here's the files that pushed spams over the edge (files with no
rules that pushed over the threshold are omitted):
Correction: that should've been 3481 spam messages.
Mike, I suspect you are using the wrong criterion in removing some of the
rules. Unfortunately none of the log readers seem to store the most
interesting bit of information. How many times did the SARE rules make a
critical difference between marking a spam message as spam? I find they
are a criti
Mike, I suspect you are using the wrong criterion in removing some of the
rules. Unfortunately none of the log readers seem to store the most
interesting bit of information. How many times did the SARE rules make a
critical difference between marking a spam message as spam? I find they
are a criti
On Freitag, 21. April 2006 06:17 Dave Augustus wrote:
> That sounds like a script I am interested in- Can you send me a copy?
/me 2
mfg zmi
--
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc- http://it-management.at
// Tel: 0660/4156531 .network.your.ideas.
// PGP Key: "lynx
Mike,
That sounds like a script I am interested in- Can you send me a copy?
TIA,
Dave Augustus
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 17:24 -0700, Mike Jackson wrote:
> > That seems fine - I'd expect that for a package like SpamAssassin, the
> > default rules (plus Razor and Pyzor) would be very good at identi
Mike Jackson wrote:
SARE RULESETS:
70_sare_adult.cf: 10
70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf: 0
70_sare_html0.cf: 1
70_sare_obfu0.cf: 1
70_sare_oem.cf: 30
70_sare_specific.cf: 5
70_sare_spoof.cf: 14
70_sare_stocks.cf: 69
70_sc_top200.cf: 1
WooHoo! 70_sare_stocks.cf hits my favorite number! Sorry just
From: "Mike Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Matt Kettler's advice in the "Good ruleset" thread made me wonder just how
many spams the various rule files I'm using actually catch. So, I wrote a
quick Perl script to look at the rule files and check a stat script's output
(against today's logs) for
That seems fine - I'd expect that for a package like SpamAssassin, the
default rules (plus Razor and Pyzor) would be very good at identifying
spam. However, this was the part that surprised me:
Sorry to reply to my own post, and before anyone had a chance to. I tried
this on my personal server
Matt Kettler's advice in the "Good ruleset" thread made me wonder just how
many spams the various rule files I'm using actually catch. So, I wrote a
quick Perl script to look at the rule files and check a stat script's output
(against today's logs) for the rules that spam messages matched, then
11 matches
Mail list logo
