Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3767 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] Spam
  • From: Per Jessen <per@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:33:22 +0100
  • Message-id: <drvet2$a66$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Carlos E. R. wrote:

> (I forgot to say that many of those false positives are from
> newsletters).

Same here. I'm in the process of building bayes-style filters that are
meant for recognising just newsletters. That way I'll be able to add
perhaps a couple of points, stopping a newsletter from ending up as a
false positive.

> Looks good... it must depend on the kind of spam you receive, I
> suppose. Also, I suppose you must be using the networks tests: it's
> true that they flag a lot of spam, but sometimes they are unfair.

Yep, I'm using network tests, my own blacklists, honeypots etc.

> BAYES_95 0.0001 0.0001 3.0 3.0
> DNS_FROM_RFC_POST 0 1.440 0 1.708 Envelope sender in
> DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS 0 0.879 0 1.447 Envelope sender in

I don't use rfc-ignorant other than as an indicator of a possibly dodgy
server. Given that number of poorly configured mail-servers, using
rfc-ignorant is a very agressive step, IMHO.

> Even lower. SuSE must be using very altered values. And a badly
> trained Bayesian database: mine scores that same email at 5%, not 95%.

Bayes is a double-edged sword - you've got to be very particular about
what you record as spam/ham. Especially if you're not just training
your bayes filters for purely personal use. And you've got to be
careful with cleaning up the database too.

> However... it proves my point that the postmaster (ISP) being ignorant
> of the RFC doesn't prove that their users send spam,

Totally agree.

/Per Jessen, Z├╝rich

-- - managed anti-spam and anti-virus solution.
Let us analyse your spam- and virus-threat - up to 2 months for free.

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups