You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Axb <ax...@gmail.com> on 2014/12/04 18:49:12 UTC
SOUGHT 2.0
It's been more than a month since my first "SOUGHT 2.0" msg.
A few have shown interest but as there hasn't been the flood of
enthusiasm and stuff getting done which I hoped for so I've dropped the
idea of getting a public autogenerated rule set / sa-update channel going.
If I can get enough data, privately, I'll give rsync access to ppl who
contribute... (you know who you are .-)
Thanks to the few who offered to help. Maybe some other time...
Axb
Re: SOUGHT 2.0
Posted by Axb <ax...@gmail.com>.
On 12/05/2014 02:27 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 4. dec. 2014 22.42.42 Axb <ax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To be able to create usable rules, several times/day I need feeds to
>> spit *at least* +150k/day. As I don't have the data....
>
> So not possible to make it run decentraly ?
>
> This imho another precompiled problem
I normally wouldn't reply to such a msg but....
It's possible to run decentraly.
The basic code in SVN - you're welcome to make it your project and spend
the next year getting it to happen,
Re: SOUGHT 2.0
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
On 4. dec. 2014 22.42.42 Axb <ax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To be able to create usable rules, several times/day I need feeds to
> spit *at least* +150k/day. As I don't have the data....
So not possible to make it run decentraly ?
This imho another precompiled problem
Re: SOUGHT 2.0
Posted by Philip Prindeville <ph...@redfish-solutions.com>.
On Dec 4, 2014, at 2:41 PM, Axb <ax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/04/2014 10:30 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
>> Axb wrote:
>>> It's been more than a month since my first "SOUGHT 2.0" msg.
>>>
>>> A few have shown interest but as there hasn't been the flood of enthusiasm
>>> and stuff getting done which I hoped for so I've dropped the idea of getting
>>> a public autogenerated rule set / sa-update channel going.
>>
>> Good poke! And I will leave this to the list to show further
>> enthusiasm for the project instead of simply promising time off list.
>
> Bob,
>
> It's not a poke - it's a fact.
>
> To be able to create usable rules, several times/day I need feeds to spit *at least* +150k/day. As I don't have the data….
I’d offer, but besides aggressively filtering spam, we also block several countries using the GeoIP database on our firewall (so we never even see the SMTP connections), and block a couple hundred CIDR blocks and ISPs, so it wouldn’t be a representative of what you might receive potentially.
Re: SOUGHT 2.0
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 2014-12-05 08:28, Axb wrote:
> On 12/05/2014 05:20 PM, Kris Deugau wrote:
>> Axb wrote:
>>> On 12/05/2014 01:15 AM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 22:41:13 +0100,
>>>> Axb <ax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Axb> To be able to create usable rules, several times/day I need feeds
>>>> Axb> to spit *at least* +150k/day. As I don't have the data....
>>>>
>>>> 150k of what? Bytes? Emails? Tokens?
>>>
>>> Sorry, thought this was obvious...
>>>
>>> SOUGHT type rule generation extracts txt strings from spams so it means
>>> +150k spams/day
>>
>> It seems to work reasonably well for me with ~2-3K each ham and spam,
>> and even provides a handful of subrules even with ~225 spam subtype
>> messages. (I generate a number of sets of rules with different subtypes
>> of spam.)
>>
>> It's probably not nearly as *effective* as it could be with larger
>> working sets.
>
> Agreed.
>
> ... I use about 5-15k from the last 8 hrs (amount varies dramatically) per rule
> gen run *for local* use, but that's hardly representative for global coverage.
Add LKML to your large batch of training email and I bet you get "interesting"
results, at best.
And one must always remember that one person's spam is another person's ham.
{o.o}
Re: SOUGHT 2.0
Posted by Axb <ax...@gmail.com>.
On 12/05/2014 05:20 PM, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Axb wrote:
>> On 12/05/2014 01:15 AM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 22:41:13 +0100,
>>> Axb <ax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Axb> To be able to create usable rules, several times/day I need feeds
>>> Axb> to spit *at least* +150k/day. As I don't have the data....
>>>
>>> 150k of what? Bytes? Emails? Tokens?
>>
>> Sorry, thought this was obvious...
>>
>> SOUGHT type rule generation extracts txt strings from spams so it means
>> +150k spams/day
>
> It seems to work reasonably well for me with ~2-3K each ham and spam,
> and even provides a handful of subrules even with ~225 spam subtype
> messages. (I generate a number of sets of rules with different subtypes
> of spam.)
>
> It's probably not nearly as *effective* as it could be with larger
> working sets.
Agreed.
... I use about 5-15k from the last 8 hrs (amount varies dramatically)
per rule gen run *for local* use, but that's hardly representative for
global coverage.
Re: SOUGHT 2.0
Posted by Kris Deugau <kd...@vianet.ca>.
Axb wrote:
> On 12/05/2014 01:15 AM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 22:41:13 +0100,
>> Axb <ax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Axb> To be able to create usable rules, several times/day I need feeds
>> Axb> to spit *at least* +150k/day. As I don't have the data....
>>
>> 150k of what? Bytes? Emails? Tokens?
>
> Sorry, thought this was obvious...
>
> SOUGHT type rule generation extracts txt strings from spams so it means
> +150k spams/day
It seems to work reasonably well for me with ~2-3K each ham and spam,
and even provides a handful of subrules even with ~225 spam subtype
messages. (I generate a number of sets of rules with different subtypes
of spam.)
It's probably not nearly as *effective* as it could be with larger
working sets.
-kgd
Re: SOUGHT 2.0
Posted by Axb <ax...@gmail.com>.
On 12/05/2014 01:15 AM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 22:41:13 +0100,
> Axb <ax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Axb> To be able to create usable rules, several times/day I need feeds
> Axb> to spit *at least* +150k/day. As I don't have the data....
>
> 150k of what? Bytes? Emails? Tokens?
Sorry, thought this was obvious...
SOUGHT type rule generation extracts txt strings from spams so it means
+150k spams/day
Re: SOUGHT 2.0
Posted by Ian Zimmerman <it...@buug.org>.
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 22:41:13 +0100,
Axb <ax...@gmail.com> wrote:
Axb> To be able to create usable rules, several times/day I need feeds
Axb> to spit *at least* +150k/day. As I don't have the data....
150k of what? Bytes? Emails? Tokens?
--
Please *no* private copies of mailing list or newsgroup messages.
Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.
Local Variables:
mode:claws-external
End:
Re: SOUGHT 2.0
Posted by Axb <ax...@gmail.com>.
On 12/04/2014 10:30 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Axb wrote:
>> It's been more than a month since my first "SOUGHT 2.0" msg.
>>
>> A few have shown interest but as there hasn't been the flood of enthusiasm
>> and stuff getting done which I hoped for so I've dropped the idea of getting
>> a public autogenerated rule set / sa-update channel going.
>
> Good poke! And I will leave this to the list to show further
> enthusiasm for the project instead of simply promising time off list.
Bob,
It's not a poke - it's a fact.
To be able to create usable rules, several times/day I need feeds to
spit *at least* +150k/day. As I don't have the data....
Re: SOUGHT 2.0
Posted by Bob Proulx <bo...@proulx.com>.
Axb wrote:
> It's been more than a month since my first "SOUGHT 2.0" msg.
>
> A few have shown interest but as there hasn't been the flood of enthusiasm
> and stuff getting done which I hoped for so I've dropped the idea of getting
> a public autogenerated rule set / sa-update channel going.
Good poke! And I will leave this to the list to show further
enthusiasm for the project instead of simply promising time off list.
Bob
Re: SOUGHT 2.0
Posted by Andrea Venturoli <ml...@netfence.it>.
On 12/04/14 18:49, Axb wrote:
> A few have shown interest but as there hasn't been the flood of
> enthusiasm and stuff getting done which I hoped for so I've dropped the
> idea of getting a public autogenerated rule set / sa-update channel going.
Hello.
With the risk of sounding stupid...
I would be interested, and I *might* be willing to help, but it is not
clear to me what I could do for the task (not even getting to whether
I've got what is needed).
Maybe your project would be more succesful if you provided a rough guide
on what anyone can do?
I run a few spamassassing sites, but would that be enough? What should I
collect and send? How? ...
bye & Thanks
av.
Re: SOUGHT 2.0
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
On 4. dec. 2014 18.50.41 Axb <ax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's been more than a month since my first "SOUGHT 2.0" msg.
+1
> A few have shown interest but as there hasn't been the flood of
> enthusiasm and stuff getting done which I hoped for so I've dropped the
> idea of getting a public autogenerated rule set / sa-update channel going.
Like sa-learn exists, will there be sa-souch ?
I think it still missing on core sa
> If I can get enough data, privately, I'll give rsync access to ppl who
> contribute... (you know who you are .-)
Yes
> Thanks to the few who offered to help. Maybe some other time...
Oh hopeffully before