You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Paul29 <na...@rs4u.com> on 2006/10/08 11:19:49 UTC
sometimes no bayesian filtering?
Hi all,
in the last days there were more and more SPAM mails where I found no
bayesian scoring in the header. This lets me guess it did not take place at
all. Is that conclusion right?
I have not been able to find a common property in these mails to tell which
mails are scanned and which not. What could be the reason? Where would you
start to check?
I also had a search in this forum but only found entries about BF not
working at all (not true in my case).
Thanks for your help, Paul
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/sometimes-no-bayesian-filtering--tf2404032.html#a6702087
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: sometimes no bayesian filtering?
Posted by "John D. Hardin" <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Paul29 wrote:
> Training the mails does not help too much: it is the type with
> random text and an embedded picture. I have no idea how to fight
> them except lowering the SPAM score.
Check out "fuzzyocr" in the list archives and the SA wiki.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ ICQ#15735746 http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 - 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference is that Unix has had thirty years of technical
types demanding basic functionality of it. And the Macintosh has
had fifteen years of interface fascist users shaping its progress.
Windows has the hairpin turns of the Microsoft marketing machine
and that's all. -- Red Drag Diva
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: sometimes no bayesian filtering?
Posted by Paul29 <na...@rs4u.com>.
Loren, Andreas,
thanks for such a fast reply. I always urge people to give complete
information when asking or reporting bugs but don't do it myself :( I am
sorry!
I use the copfilter (http://www.copfilter.org/) plugin 0.83 beta3a to ipcop
firewall which contains SpamAssassin 3.1.4.
Loren seems right - the spamd log file Andreas reminded me of says
bayes=0.494975644302803:
Oct 8 09:05:08 SpAs spamd[10825]: spamd: connection from localhost
[127.0.0.1] at port 38360
Oct 8 09:05:09 SpAs spamd[10825]: spamd: processing message
<00...@kasia4c2d66d8f> for filter:702
Oct 8 09:05:26 SpAs spamd[10825]: spamd: identified spam (9.2/5.0) for
filter:702 in 17.5 seconds, 10639 bytes.
Oct 8 09:05:26 SpAs spamd[10825]: spamd: result: Y 9 -
DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,EXTRA_MPART_TYPE,HTML_40_50,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL,SPF_SOFTFAIL
scantime=17.5,size=10639,user=filter,uid=702,required_score=5.0,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=38360,mid=<00...@kasia4c2d66d8f>,bayes=0.494975644302803,autolearn=no
Oct 8 09:05:26 SpAs spamd[10556]: prefork: child states: II
Training the mails does not help too much: it is the type with random text
and an embedded picture. I have no idea how to fight them except lowering
the SPAM score.
Thanks again both of you, Paul
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/sometimes-no-bayesian-filtering--tf2404032.html#a6702261
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: sometimes no bayesian filtering?
Posted by Andreas Pettersson <an...@telia.com>.
Paul29 wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>in the last days there were more and more SPAM mails where I found no
>bayesian scoring in the header. This lets me guess it did not take place at
>all. Is that conclusion right?
>I have not been able to find a common property in these mails to tell which
>mails are scanned and which not. What could be the reason? Where would you
>start to check?
>
The spamd log file is a good place to start. Any errors at all?
--
Andreas
Re: sometimes no bayesian filtering?
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
> in the last days there were more and more SPAM mails where I found no
> bayesian scoring in the header. This lets me guess it did not take place
> at
> all. Is that conclusion right?
They may not have been scanned, but then you should see no SA score at all.
A better chance is that they scored bayes_50, whihc means "I don't know".
Since it is a useless score with a value of zero, some versions of SA don't
show this result.
I'd try training some of them as spam and see if they start showing up.
Loren