Re: [Spamassassin Wiki] Trivial Update of "MassCheck" by FredTarasevicius

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

Michael Parker writes:
> Apache Wiki wrote:
> >   
> >   == Using network tests ==
> >   
> > - For mass-checks for scoresets 1 or 3, using network tests, you need to provide the {{{--net}}} switch.  Ensure Net::DNS, Mail::SPF::Query, Razor, Pyzor and DCC are installed.
> > + For mass-checks for scoresets 1 or 3, using network tests, you need to provide the {{{--net}}} switch.  Ensure Net::DNS, Mail::SPF::Query, Razor (InstallingRazor), Pyzor (InstallingPyzor) and DCC (["InstallingDCC"]) are installed.
> >   
> 
> Razor/DCC/Pyzor are all use rules.  So there is no need to install those
> for a mass-check, unless you have lots of msgs that were not checked
> initially.  We should only be using the historical data for these rules
> anyway, so probably best to not install them even if you do have a lot
> of messages that were not checked initially.

That would be tricky; I've turned all of those off to reduce CPU time, and
(of course) my spamtraps have never scanned the messages using them.

> I'll argue that we should only allow previously scanned messages for
> mass-checks (excluding shortcircuit msgs as well) but that argument
> would probably be tough to win. *grin*

;)

--j.

Re: [Spamassassin Wiki] Trivial Update of "MassCheck" by FredTarasevicius

[Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com>]

Justin Mason wrote:
> Michael Parker writes:
>> Apache Wiki wrote:
>>>   
>>>   == Using network tests ==
>>>   
>>> - For mass-checks for scoresets 1 or 3, using network tests, you need to provide the {{{--net}}} switch.  Ensure Net::DNS, Mail::SPF::Query, Razor, Pyzor and DCC are installed.
>>> + For mass-checks for scoresets 1 or 3, using network tests, you need to provide the {{{--net}}} switch.  Ensure Net::DNS, Mail::SPF::Query, Razor (InstallingRazor), Pyzor (InstallingPyzor) and DCC (["InstallingDCC"]) are installed.
>>>   
>> Razor/DCC/Pyzor are all use rules.  So there is no need to install those

Erp, of course I meant to say "all reuse rules".

>> for a mass-check, unless you have lots of msgs that were not checked
>> initially.  We should only be using the historical data for these rules
>> anyway, so probably best to not install them even if you do have a lot
>> of messages that were not checked initially.
> 
> That would be tricky; I've turned all of those off to reduce CPU time, and
> (of course) my spamtraps have never scanned the messages using them.

Then that greatly skews the usefullness of those rules, or any ##reuse
rules really.  The whole point of reuse is to get an accurate accounting
of how those rules behave in realtime, not how well they do 6 months later.

Michael

> 
>> I'll argue that we should only allow previously scanned messages for
>> mass-checks (excluding shortcircuit msgs as well) but that argument
>> would probably be tough to win. *grin*
> 
> ;)
> 
> --j.
> 

Re: [Spamassassin Wiki] Trivial Update of "MassCheck" by FredTarasevicius

[Theo Van Dinter <fe...@apache.org>]

On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 04:16:51PM +0000, Justin Mason wrote:
> > Razor/DCC/Pyzor are all use rules.  So there is no need to install those
> > for a mass-check, unless you have lots of msgs that were not checked
> > initially.  We should only be using the historical data for these rules
> > anyway, so probably best to not install them even if you do have a lot
> > of messages that were not checked initially.

We also need to go through and verify that any net tests have "reuse"
appropriately configured, and that any new net rules are properly pushed into
3.1 so we can get real world results.  Speaking of which, I should look at
getting DNSWL in 3.1...

-- 
Randomly Selected Tagline:
"A book is like a mirror.  If an ass peers in, you can't exactly expect
 an apostle to peer out."                - Unknown