You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Axb <ax...@gmail.com> on 2014/10/04 11:32:17 UTC
bayes_ignore_header
Unless somebody thinks this a terribly bad idea, I'll be adding a
20_bayes_ignore_header.cf to the SA default rules to replace the few
(unmantained) bayes_ignore_header entries in local.cf
comments?
Re: bayes_ignore_header
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
On 10/4/2014 5:32 AM, Axb wrote:
> Unless somebody thinks this a terribly bad idea, I'll be adding a
> 20_bayes_ignore_header.cf to the SA default rules to replace the few
> (unmantained) bayes_ignore_header entries in local.cf
>
> comments?
Far as I'm concerned, you are the reining Bayes expert on the PMC. You
have my proxy for a +1.
Re: bayes_ignore_header
Posted by Axb <ax...@gmail.com>.
On 10/04/2014 03:18 PM, RW wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 11:32:17 +0200
> Axb wrote:
>
>> Unless somebody thinks this a terribly bad idea, I'll be adding a
>> 20_bayes_ignore_header.cf to the SA default rules to replace the few
>> (unmantained) bayes_ignore_header entries in local.cf
>>
>> comments?
>
> I'd like to see some evidence that these headers are harmful before it's
> set unconditionally like that.
>
> I had a quick look at my own mail and found that barracuda headers made
> it through to X-Spam-tokens in only about 0.2% of spam and ham; and when
> they did they were mostly in the spam token lists for spam and equally
> spread between the two lists for ham.
>
Pls let us know when you have the stats.
Re: bayes_ignore_header
Posted by RW <rw...@googlemail.com>.
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 11:32:17 +0200
Axb wrote:
> Unless somebody thinks this a terribly bad idea, I'll be adding a
> 20_bayes_ignore_header.cf to the SA default rules to replace the few
> (unmantained) bayes_ignore_header entries in local.cf
>
> comments?
I'd like to see some evidence that these headers are harmful before it's
set unconditionally like that.
I had a quick look at my own mail and found that barracuda headers made
it through to X-Spam-tokens in only about 0.2% of spam and ham; and when
they did they were mostly in the spam token lists for spam and equally
spread between the two lists for ham.
Re: bayes_ignore_header
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
On 10/4/2014 5:32 AM, Axb wrote:
> Unless somebody thinks this a terribly bad idea, I'll be adding a
> 20_bayes_ignore_header.cf to the SA default rules to replace the few
> (unmantained) bayes_ignore_header entries in local.cf
>
> comments?
Far as I'm concerned, you are the reining Bayes expert on the PMC. You
have my proxy for a +1.