You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by William Taylor <wi...@corp.sonic.net> on 2008/10/13 17:25:32 UTC
is Pyzor worth it?
Is Pyzor worth running these days?
Is it still effective?
Can anyone using it comment on it?
Thanks,
William
RE: is Pyzor worth it?
Posted by Michael Hutchinson <mh...@manux.co.nz>.
Hello William,
This is a very good question. I had to ask that of myself just 2 weeks
ago.
Pyzor is great, it marks up Spam really well. I'm not going to report
statistics, but it is *very* effective in reducing levels of Spam.
However, as our site is quite busy, the amount of Pyzor hash lookups in
any segment of time were becoming too much, and the lookups would start
timing out - creating very long scan times for Spamassassin, which
eventually got overloaded - Too much incoming mail and not enough time
to scan it.
So, we regrettably disabled Pyzor for our site.
I would happily enable it again, but only as a server - pulling down
updates from other servers every so often during the day, and allowing
people to do lookups against our server - problem is that the boss
doesn't want this... So we just get more Spam.
Anyway.. if you're going to enable it, watch Pyzor in case it has
problems talking to it's server - the results are undesirable.
Cheers,
Michael Hutchinson
Manux Solutions Ltd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Taylor [mailto:williamt@corp.sonic.net]
> Sent: 14 October 2008 4:26 a.m.
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: is Pyzor worth it?
>
> Is Pyzor worth running these days?
> Is it still effective?
> Can anyone using it comment on it?
>
>
> Thanks,
> William
Re: is Pyzor worth it?
Posted by Felix Buenemann <Fe...@gmx.de>.
I have had results similar to Peter's. I'm currently running Pyzor as an
additional spam qualifier, but I have disabled shortcircuiting of the
PYZOR_CHECK rule, due to the number of FPs pyzor hits.
On my server I have shortcircuited the highest hitting rules, that also
have the lowest level of FPs:
URIBL_BLACK, URIBL_JP_SURBL, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET, RAZOR2_CHECK
I originally had BAYES_99 in this list, but it generates FPs form time
to time, so I've removed it from the shortcircuit list.
Using shortcircuit rules keeps down processing time, although this is
not much of an issue on my server, because 99% of the spam is blocked by
spamdyke before even accepting the mail with almost no cpu time.
-- Felix Buenemann
Am 14.10.2008 17:32 Uhr, Peter Nitschke schrieb:
> I just added Pyzor to a server for the last 24 hours out of curiousity.
>
> All the spam it hit, was already well tagged as spam, eg scores in the 20+
> range, but it also hit a few hams which fortunately had enough good points
> to not go above the threshold.
>
> This may well be a reflection on the effectiveness of my current setup, but
> I am about to remove Pyzor from the server.
>
> Peter
>
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 14/10/2008 at 9:46 AM Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>> On 13.10.08 08:25, William Taylor wrote:
>>> Is Pyzor worth running these days?
>>> Is it still effective?
>>> Can anyone using it comment on it?
>> works for me, however there are still some error messages.
>> And it has FPs for some mailing lists monthly notices (and I have to
>> register to be able to list/delist).
>>
>> --
>> Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Re[2]: is Pyzor worth it?
Posted by Peter Nitschke <em...@ace.net.au>.
I just added Pyzor to a server for the last 24 hours out of curiousity.
All the spam it hit, was already well tagged as spam, eg scores in the 20+
range, but it also hit a few hams which fortunately had enough good points
to not go above the threshold.
This may well be a reflection on the effectiveness of my current setup, but
I am about to remove Pyzor from the server.
Peter
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 14/10/2008 at 9:46 AM Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>On 13.10.08 08:25, William Taylor wrote:
>> Is Pyzor worth running these days?
>> Is it still effective?
>> Can anyone using it comment on it?
>
>works for me, however there are still some error messages.
>And it has FPs for some mailing lists monthly notices (and I have to
>register to be able to list/delist).
>
>--
>Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
>Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
>Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
>WinError #99999: Out of error messages.
Re: is Pyzor worth it?
Posted by Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>.
On 13.10.08 08:25, William Taylor wrote:
> Is Pyzor worth running these days?
> Is it still effective?
> Can anyone using it comment on it?
works for me, however there are still some error messages.
And it has FPs for some mailing lists monthly notices (and I have to
register to be able to list/delist).
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
WinError #99999: Out of error messages.
Re: is Pyzor worth it?
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>.
On Mon, October 13, 2008 17:25, William Taylor wrote:
> Is Pyzor worth running these days?
> Is it still effective?
> Can anyone using it comment on it?
its still working here, my own problem is to have it autolearn in good
way, but it newer hits wroung on ham / spam here, running my own pyzord :)
eg will any recived msgs be spam pr default, until its whitelisted ?
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
Re: is Pyzor worth it?
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
Forgot to include Karmasphere:
160 KARMA_CONTENT_NEGATIVE
210 KARMA_CONNECT_NEGATIVE
Bill
Bill Landry wrote:
> Here are some stats for this past weekend comparing Pyzor to other hash
> tests:
>
> 36 CTYME_IXHASH
> 38 HOSTEUROPE_IXHASH
> 92 GENERIC_IXHASH
> 129 NIXSPAM_IXHASH
> 218 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100
> 256 PYZOR_CHECK
> 388 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100
> 411 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100
> 418 RAZOR2_CHECK
> 426 DCC_CHECK
>
> The only downside to Pyzor is that it requires python rather than perl.
> Otherwise, it certainly helps here.
>
> Bill
>
> William Taylor wrote:
>> Is Pyzor worth running these days?
>> Is it still effective?
>> Can anyone using it comment on it?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> William
>
Re: is Pyzor worth it?
Posted by William Taylor <wi...@corp.sonic.net>.
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 08:44:08AM -0700, Bill Landry wrote:
> Here are some stats for this past weekend comparing Pyzor to other hash
> tests:
>
> 36 CTYME_IXHASH
> 38 HOSTEUROPE_IXHASH
> 92 GENERIC_IXHASH
> 129 NIXSPAM_IXHASH
> 218 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100
> 256 PYZOR_CHECK
> 388 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100
> 411 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100
> 418 RAZOR2_CHECK
> 426 DCC_CHECK
>
> The only downside to Pyzor is that it requires python rather than perl.
> Otherwise, it certainly helps here.
>
> Bill
Thanks Bill
Re: is Pyzor worth it?
Posted by Jake Maul <ja...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com> wrote:
> Here are some stats for this past weekend comparing Pyzor to other hash
> tests:
>
> 36 CTYME_IXHASH
> 38 HOSTEUROPE_IXHASH
> 92 GENERIC_IXHASH
> 129 NIXSPAM_IXHASH
> 218 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100
> 256 PYZOR_CHECK
> 388 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100
> 411 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100
> 418 RAZOR2_CHECK
> 426 DCC_CHECK
>
> The only downside to Pyzor is that it requires python rather than perl.
> Otherwise, it certainly helps here.
>
> Bill
I second these results.... PYZOR_CHECK hits ~67% of my spam, and is
currently the 12th-highest-hitting rule. BAYES_99, Botnet, and URIBL
are better, but for my spam Pyzor hits more than Razor does.
Jake
Re: is Pyzor worth it?
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>.
On Mon, October 13, 2008 17:44, Bill Landry wrote:
> The only downside to Pyzor is that it requires python rather than perl.
> Otherwise, it certainly helps here.
it gets the job done :)
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216374
any helpers welcome
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
Re: is Pyzor worth it?
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
Here are some stats for this past weekend comparing Pyzor to other hash
tests:
36 CTYME_IXHASH
38 HOSTEUROPE_IXHASH
92 GENERIC_IXHASH
129 NIXSPAM_IXHASH
218 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100
256 PYZOR_CHECK
388 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100
411 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100
418 RAZOR2_CHECK
426 DCC_CHECK
The only downside to Pyzor is that it requires python rather than perl.
Otherwise, it certainly helps here.
Bill
William Taylor wrote:
> Is Pyzor worth running these days?
> Is it still effective?
> Can anyone using it comment on it?
>
>
> Thanks,
> William