You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> on 2004/01/14 08:44:26 UTC
Re: 2.62 this week?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes:
>2.62 is down to 5 tickets left. Can we do a push and get those closed
>by Thursday noon, release Thursday evening?
>
>I'd like to get 2.62 out of the way and let folks focus on 2.70.
That's it -- all closed. We're ready to go ;)
- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQFABPNaQTcbUG5Y7woRAsCSAKCUP3BVsXNwzqYcDYbrkweIDvSsvQCgjRVG
hPj0X5hzS+5C4V6rBRhYsSY=
=2Hv8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: 2.62 this week?
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 12:05:09AM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
> If I got things right 2.70 is a bit off still. So there should be time
> to get SA out of the Incubator.
Yeah, at least next week... ;)
No, it's at least 2 months out, probably 3-4 judging from previous releases.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"How to knock yourself out: Take a large herring, make contact with back
of head. Repeat if necessary." - Theo
Re: 2.62 this week?
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 23:39, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 January 2004 23:32 CET Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 11:28:27PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> > > Do we need an ok from the Incubator folks to release 2.62?
> >
> > No. 2.62 is completely ASF-free (well, minus the SVN repo), under the
> > old licensing, etc.
Indeed.
> > 2.70 (3.0.0?) will be the first ASF release which will go through all
> > their channels and such.
>
> Hope we'll be out of the Incubator till then :)
You mean you want to go back in at that point? ;) :)
If I got things right 2.70 is a bit off still. So there should be time
to get SA out of the Incubator.
Sander
Re: 2.62 this week?
Posted by "Malte S. Stretz" <ms...@gmx.net>.
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 23:32 CET Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 11:28:27PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> > Do we need an ok from the Incubator folks to release 2.62?
>
> No. 2.62 is completely ASF-free (well, minus the SVN repo), under the
> old licensing, etc.
>
> 2.70 (3.0.0?) will be the first ASF release which will go through all
> their channels and such.
Hope we'll be out of the Incubator till then :)
Cheers,
Malte
--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
Re: 2.62 this week?
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 11:28:27PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> Do we need an ok from the Incubator folks to release 2.62?
No. 2.62 is completely ASF-free (well, minus the SVN repo), under the
old licensing, etc.
2.70 (3.0.0?) will be the first ASF release which will go through all
their channels and such.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"Eigenvalues and eigenvectors are actually used for something, as opposed to
most of this stuff ..." - PLA for Matricies
Re: 2.62 this week?
Posted by "Malte S. Stretz" <ms...@gmx.net>.
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 08:49 CET Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:44:26PM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
> > >I'd like to get 2.62 out of the way and let folks focus on 2.70.
> >
> > That's it -- all closed. We're ready to go ;)
>
> Hehe. Geesh, if it was going to be that simple I should have asked last
> week. ;)
Do we need an ok from the Incubator folks to release 2.62?
Cheers,
Malte
--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
Re: 2.62 this week?
Posted by Sidney Markowitz <si...@sidney.com>.
Duncan Findlay wrote:
> So essentially, I have no Bayes DB.
Well, that would explain the "Bayes poison" spam getting through.
SA 2.61 is consistently catching that spam for me just on Bayes, with
almost no other rule matching.
-- sidney
Re: 2.62 this week?
Posted by Duncan Findlay <du...@debian.org>.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 08:22:37AM +1300, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> Duncan Findlay wrote:
> >I'm not really sure why these mails seem to not get hit
>
> I started running 2.61 on my real mail feed just about a week ago,
> initially training Bayes on the most recent 2000 spam and about 500 ham
> that I had received. I also have been learning every piece of mail that
> comes in as either spam or ham. Since then it has scored BAYES_99 on
> every one of the "poisoned" spam with random words after the /HTML tag.
>
> Could there be something about the way you train or use Bayes that is
> causing it to miss on these "poisoned" spam? Why would we see such
> different results?
Hmmm... I just checked my Bayes DB and noticed something very very strange.
0.000 0 2 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 172 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 407 0 non-token data: nham
0.000 0 21880 0 non-token data: ntokens
0.000 0 1073413315 0 non-token data: oldest atime
0.000 0 1074099954 0 non-token data: newest atime
0.000 0 1073413403 0 non-token data: last journal sync atime
0.000 0 1073413403 0 non-token data: last expiry atime
0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: last expire atime delta
0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: last expire reduction count
0.500 0 0 0 Fog
0.500 0 0 0 anti
0.500 0 0 0 largest
0.500 0 0 0 ile
0.500 0 0 0 requiring
0.500 0 0 0 HX-Spam-Checker:sk:spamass
0.500 0 0 0 Via-gr-a
0.500 0 0 0 spending
0.500 0 0 0 T.V
0.500 0 0 0 System!
0.500 0 0 0 init.d
....
So essentially, I have no Bayes DB. I don't know why the counts are
0... that certainly shouldn't happen, should it? Also, I don't know
what happened to my cron jobs -- I definitely should have more mail in
my DB.
I wonder if my DB is corrupt for some reason. I sometimes worry about
this when I downgrade spamassassin every once in a while for testing,
etc.
Anyone seen this before?
--
Duncan Findlay
Re: 2.62 this week?
Posted by Sidney Markowitz <si...@sidney.com>.
Duncan Findlay wrote:
> I'm not really sure why these mails seem to not get hit
I started running 2.61 on my real mail feed just about a week ago,
initially training Bayes on the most recent 2000 spam and about 500 ham
that I had received. I also have been learning every piece of mail that
comes in as either spam or ham. Since then it has scored BAYES_99 on
every one of the "poisoned" spam with random words after the /HTML tag.
Could there be something about the way you train or use Bayes that is
causing it to miss on these "poisoned" spam? Why would we see such
different results?
-- sidney
Re: 2.62 this week?
Posted by Duncan Findlay <du...@debian.org>.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 01:26:31PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 01:10:18PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> > Is there a fix for all the bayes poison stuff in 2.62? That's my biggest issue right now with 2.61.
>
> Not really, there's no fix for it in 2.70 either. Invisible text and
> html/text differences are (relatively) easy to pick out, but most of
> the bayes poisoning stuff I've seen is just random visible valid words
> in mail, typically at the end.
>
> I can't think of any rule that would pick up on that as a trick unless
> we put in full language parsing.
Usually it's after the </html>. And often three lines in the text
part, usually longer words, rarely words like a or the, etc.
I'm not really sure why these mails seem to not get hit -- the bayes
poisoning stuff should have no effect, but they do -- I think they're
pretty carefully crafted.
--
Duncan Findlay
Re: 2.62 this week?
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 01:10:18PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> Is there a fix for all the bayes poison stuff in 2.62? That's my biggest issue right now with 2.61.
Not really, there's no fix for it in 2.70 either. Invisible text and
html/text differences are (relatively) easy to pick out, but most of
the bayes poisoning stuff I've seen is just random visible valid words
in mail, typically at the end.
I can't think of any rule that would pick up on that as a trick unless
we put in full language parsing.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
(By komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu, Mark Komarinski)
Re: 2.62 this week?
Posted by Duncan Findlay <du...@debian.org>.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 02:49:38AM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:44:26PM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
> > >I'd like to get 2.62 out of the way and let folks focus on 2.70.
> >
> > That's it -- all closed. We're ready to go ;)
>
> Hehe. Geesh, if it was going to be that simple I should have asked last
> week. ;)
>
> There doesn't seem to be any other major issues in the 2.70 queue to
> move back, so I think we're good. Let's eat some dogfood for a day and
> release Thursday barring any major issues. :) Thanks all!
Is there a fix for all the bayes poison stuff in 2.62? That's my biggest issue right now with 2.61.
--
Duncan Findlay
Re: 2.62 this week?
Posted by "Malte S. Stretz" <ms...@gmx.net>.
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 08:49 CET Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:44:26PM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
> > >I'd like to get 2.62 out of the way and let folks focus on 2.70.
> >
> > That's it -- all closed. We're ready to go ;)
>
> Hehe. Geesh, if it was going to be that simple I should have asked last
> week. ;)
Sorry guys :) What do you think about bug 2924? Could/should also slip.
Cheers,
Malte
--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
Re: 2.62 this week?
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:44:26PM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
> >I'd like to get 2.62 out of the way and let folks focus on 2.70.
>
> That's it -- all closed. We're ready to go ;)
Hehe. Geesh, if it was going to be that simple I should have asked last
week. ;)
There doesn't seem to be any other major issues in the 2.70 queue to
move back, so I think we're good. Let's eat some dogfood for a day and
release Thursday barring any major issues. :) Thanks all!
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"DAKA ... for a good night of fasting." - Theo