You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by ArtemGr <ar...@gmail.com> on 2009/09/22 14:08:35 UTC
Re: partial (lazy) scoring? - run a second time?
ArtemGr <artemciy <at> gmail.com> writes:
> I would like to configure Spamassassin to only do certain tests
> when the "required_score" is not yet reached.
> For example, do the usual rule-based and bayesian tests first,
> and if the score is lower than the "required_score",
> then do the DCC and RAZOR2 tests.
>
> Is it possible?
Another way comes to mind: is to run the SpamAssassin the first time
with the basic set of detections, and if the score is low,
run it a second time with only the advanced detections turned on
(using an alternative configuration by means of the "‐‐configpath=").
That rises the question, whether the basic detections can be turned off.
I found the following options:
skip_rbl_checks 1
dns_available no
use_bayes 0
use_bayes_rules 0
bayes_auto_learn 0
- but I do not see an option
to turn off the static rules shipped with spamassasin.
Is there such an option?
Re: partial (lazy) scoring? - run a second time?
Posted by RW <rw...@googlemail.com>.
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:32:35 +0000 (UTC)
ArtemGr <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Benny Pedersen <me <at> junc.org> writes:
> > my former own mailhost have changed from spamassassin to dspam, less
> > work for him and his users, and definaly lees work for his low
> > budget quad xeon intel server with 6Gb ram and alot of
> > disks/diskspace
>
> Mmm. DSPAM seems to be just another Bayesian filter, no?
It's not simply a standalone filter like SpamAssassin or Bogofilter,
it's an integrated system with quarantine and a web-based user
interface, which is why it appeals to many admins. You can use it as
standalone filter, but they don't go out of their way to make that
intuitive.
> > but i keep away from dspam, it is to unstable for me, but it might
> > just be me as always :)
The original developer sold it to a commercial company who did little
with it, and it got into a bit of a mess. Earlier in the year a new
project was started to maintain it, so hopefully it'll improve.
Re: partial (lazy) scoring? - run a second time?
Posted by ArtemGr <ar...@gmail.com>.
Benny Pedersen <me <at> junc.org> writes:
> fuzzyocr stop scanning if spam score is over a limit, why scan
> ocr when spamassassin can do it without ocr ?
Good to know.
> it could maybe be a option to make spamassassin stop scanning in
> generic if spam score is high ?
>
> there is alot of plugins that basicly just does digest match and
> check remote if found elsewhere, only diff is how digest is done
> and for what
>
> my former own mailhost have changed from spamassassin to dspam, less
> work for him and his users, and definaly lees work for his low budget
> quad xeon intel server with 6Gb ram and alot of disks/diskspace
Mmm. DSPAM seems to be just another Bayesian filter, no?
I'm now using j-chkmail milter for DNSBL and URI DNSBL checks, then CRM114.
Re: partial (lazy) scoring? - run a second time?
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>.
On tor 24 sep 2009 10:59:35 CEST, ArtemGr wrote
> Do you have measurements, or are you just imagining things?
> OCR-ing all the graphic attachments might be much slower
> than your usual spamassasin run.
> DCC and Pyzor checks might introduce large delays as well.
fuzzyocr stop scanning if spam score is over a limit, why scan
ocr when spamassassin can do it without ocr ?
it could maybe be a option to make spamassassin stop scanning in
generic if spam score is high ?
there is alot of plugins that basicly just does digest match and
check remote if found elsewhere, only diff is how digest is done
and for what
my former own mailhost have changed from spamassassin to dspam, less
work for him and his users, and definaly lees work for his low budget
quad xeon intel server with 6Gb ram and alot of disks/diskspace
but i keep away from dspam, it is to unstable for me, but it might
just be me as always :)
--
xpoint
Re: partial (lazy) scoring? - run a second time?
Posted by ArtemGr <ar...@gmail.com>.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar <at> fantomas.sk> writes:
> > That rises the question, whether the basic detections can be turned off.
> >
> > I found the following options:
> > skip_rbl_checks 1
> > dns_available no
> > use_bayes 0
> > use_bayes_rules 0
> > bayes_auto_learn 0
> > - but I do not see an option
> > to turn off the static rules shipped with spamassasin.
> >
> > Is there such an option?
>
> No, unless you will run spamassassin twice, or spamc once and spamassassin
> the other time. Note that running spamassassin would take much more time and
> the most CPU time-consuming rules are those that are not disabled in local
> mode.
>
> Why do you want to do that?
Do you have measurements, or are you just imagining things?
OCR-ing all the graphic attachments might be much slower
than your usual spamassasin run.
DCC and Pyzor checks might introduce large delays as well.
Re: partial (lazy) scoring? - run a second time?
Posted by Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>.
> ArtemGr <artemciy <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > I would like to configure Spamassassin to only do certain tests
> > when the "required_score" is not yet reached.
> > For example, do the usual rule-based and bayesian tests first,
> > and if the score is lower than the "required_score",
> > then do the DCC and RAZOR2 tests.
On 22.09.09 12:08, ArtemGr wrote:
> Another way comes to mind: is to run the SpamAssassin the first time
> with the basic set of detections, and if the score is low,
> run it a second time with only the advanced detections turned on
> (using an alternative configuration by means of the "‐‐configpath=").
>
> That rises the question, whether the basic detections can be turned off.
>
> I found the following options:
> skip_rbl_checks 1
> dns_available no
> use_bayes 0
> use_bayes_rules 0
> bayes_auto_learn 0
> - but I do not see an option
> to turn off the static rules shipped with spamassasin.
>
> Is there such an option?
No, unless you will run spamassassin twice, or spamc once and spamassassin
the other time. Note that running spamassassin would take much more time and
the most CPU time-consuming rules are those that are not disabled in local
mode.
Why do you want to do that?
--
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.
Boost your system's speed by 500% - DEL C:\WINDOWS\*.*