Posted this to the wrong/no list (via Nabble) yesterday... I've seen an uptick in false negatives lately, and the spam that is getting through is all the same stuff repeatedly. If anyone would be willing to run these samples through their filters and let me know if they get better hits, I would appreciate it. There are three at http://nerdnetworks.org/spam/
I'm using SA 3.3.1, with Bayes, etc. I also have greylisting on my system with a 15 minute delay, and surprisingly the first sample in this group now hits a bunch of RBLs and scores >5, but apparently the 15 minute delay wasn't enough time for that to help me. I've also been training my Bayes DB on these types of messages for a few days, but they still keep getting through. I used to hear that if your Bayes DB gets too big it can become ineffective. I don't know if that's true or not, but here's my '--dump magic' output: 0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version 0.000 0 62157 0 non-token data: nspam 0.000 0 176680 0 non-token data: nham 0.000 0 144331 0 non-token data: ntokens 0.000 0 1383022790 0 non-token data: oldest atime 0.000 0 1383770853 0 non-token data: newest atime 0.000 0 1383766433 0 non-token data: last journal sync atime 0.000 0 1383685115 0 non-token data: last expiry atime 0.000 0 662551 0 non-token data: last expire atime delta 0.000 0 19902 0 non-token data: last expire reduction count Looking at my spamd log, out of 1300 messages classified as spam, 566 hit BAYES_9* and 391 hit BAYES_5*. Thanks in advance for any advice anyone can offer! -- View this message in context: http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Uptick-in-false-negatives-filter-check-tp107090.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
