I don’t know who runs the ruby-talk mailing list. I’ve noticed that
ruby-talk uses a very old version of SpamAssassin (version 2.20 instead of
the current 2.55). Older versions are less effective at keeping spam
out.
Since ruby-talk is the only list from which I get spam (and I’m on about
10 lists) it occurred to me that the SA version might be the reason why.
I just wanted to suggest that SA be updated at ruby-talk.
Cheers,
···
–
Daniel Carrera | PGP: 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88
Math PhD. UMD | http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html
-
-
-
-
- Weekly Smile * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sign in a hotel in Athens:
Visitors are expected to complain at the office between the hours
of 9 and 11 A.M. daily.
Daniel Carrera wrote:
I don’t know who runs the ruby-talk mailing list. I’ve noticed that
ruby-talk uses a very old version of SpamAssassin (version 2.20 instead of
the current 2.55). Older versions are less effective at keeping spam
out.
Since ruby-talk is the only list from which I get spam (and I’m on about
10 lists) it occurred to me that the SA version might be the reason why.
I just wanted to suggest that SA be updated at ruby-talk.
My guess would be that the other lists are not open to anyone; in my
experience SpamAssassin isn’t going to be perfect, and some spam will
inevitably get through.
I’ll upgrade SA the next time I’m on that box, but I wouldn’t get your
hopes up 
Cheers
Dave
My guess would be that the other lists are not open to anyone; in my
experience SpamAssassin isn’t going to be perfect, and some spam will
inevitably get through.
AFAIK they are not any less open than ruby-talk. In particular at the
OpenOffice mailing list we frequently (read “daily”) get emails from
people who are not subscribed and don’t even know how a mailing list is
different from a help hotline.
I’ll upgrade SA the next time I’m on that box, but I wouldn’t get your
hopes up
Thanks. We’ll see what happens. The thing about SA versions is only a
guess of course.
Cheers,
···
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 03:37:54AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
Daniel Carrera | PGP: 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88
Math PhD. UMD | http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html
-
-
-
-
- Weekly Smile * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sign in a hotel in Athens:
Visitors are expected to complain at the office between the hours
of 9 and 11 A.M. daily.
My guess would be that the other lists are not open to anyone; in my
experience SpamAssassin isn’t going to be perfect, and some spam will
inevitably get through.
I’ll upgrade SA the next time I’m on that box, but I wouldn’t get your
hopes up
Out of the hundreds of mails daily through ruby-talk, I get maybe
single-digit spams daily through it [that aren’t caught through my own spam
filtering].
I’ve recently switched from spamassassin to spambayes with much improved results.
···
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 03:49:55 +0900 Daniel Carrera dcarrera@math.umd.edu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 03:37:54AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
My guess would be that the other lists are not open to anyone; in my
experience SpamAssassin isn’t going to be perfect, and some spam will
inevitably get through.
AFAIK they are not any less open than ruby-talk. In particular at the
OpenOffice mailing list we frequently (read “daily”) get emails from
people who are not subscribed and don’t even know how a mailing list is
different from a help hotline.
I’ll upgrade SA the next time I’m on that box, but I wouldn’t get your
hopes up
Thanks. We’ll see what happens. The thing about SA versions is only a
guess of course.
Cheers,
Daniel Carrera | PGP: 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88
Math PhD. UMD | http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html
-
-
-
-
- Weekly Smile * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sign in a hotel in Athens:
Visitors are expected to complain at the office between the hours
of 9 and 11 A.M. daily.
–
Seth Kurtzberg
Research, Development, and Network Operations Center
ISEC.us
480-314-1540
seth@isec.us
Out of the hundreds of mails daily through ruby-talk, I get maybe
single-digit spams daily through it [that aren’t caught through my own spam
filtering].
Yeah. I didn’t say it was a two-digit number. I just said that the spam
I get through all the other lists is so close to 0 that I cannot
distinguish it from 0 (ie. If any spam has gotten through those, I
haven’t noticed).
I’m not saying anything like “ruby-talk sucks” or the like. I simply
suggested that upgrading SA might offer an improvement. That’s all. Just
an idea.
Daniel Carrera | PGP: 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88
Math PhD. UMD | http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html
-
-
-
-
- Weekly Smile * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sign in a hotel in Athens:
Visitors are expected to complain at the office between the hours
of 9 and 11 A.M. daily.
I don’t do any spam filtering, but I read ruby-talk through a separate
mailbox set up for that purpose, and it receives maybe 0-3 spams a day,
which as a tiny proportion of the total list traffic is easy to deal with.
It would be more annoying, from my point of view, to start getting false
positives on valid postings.
Regards,
Brian.
···
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 04:48:05AM +0900, Michael Campbell wrote:
My guess would be that the other lists are not open to anyone; in my
experience SpamAssassin isn’t going to be perfect, and some spam will
inevitably get through.
I’ll upgrade SA the next time I’m on that box, but I wouldn’t get your
hopes up
Out of the hundreds of mails daily through ruby-talk, I get maybe
single-digit spams daily through it [that aren’t caught through my own spam
filtering].
Thanks I’ll keep that in mind. I’m using spamassassin because that’s what
the sysadmin has installed. The latest version has a Bayes filter which
seems to help a lot.
There’s probably an advantage to using different programs for filtering
mail. Maybe one can pickup some kinds of spam that the other cannot.
···
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 04:26:24AM +0900, Seth Kurtzberg wrote:
I’ve recently switched from spamassassin to spambayes with much improved results.
–
Daniel Carrera | PGP: 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88
Math PhD. UMD | http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html
-
-
-
-
- Weekly Smile * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sign in a hotel in Athens:
Visitors are expected to complain at the office between the hours
of 9 and 11 A.M. daily.
Bayesian and other probabilistic classifiers require training and would
be a poor choice to employ in an automated remailer. To implement a
Bayesian filter would require a large corpus of presorted spam and ham
to bootstrap the classifier and willing volunteers to continue training
the classifier over time to respond to changes in spam content. That
job is only marginally less intensive than just moderating the list to
begin with. The filter administrator would need to read each message
which came across ruby-talk to figure out whether it should be reported
to the filter as spam. Heuristic analysis like that of SpamAssassin is
better suited to an automated system.
Brandon D. Valentine
···
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 06:46:18AM +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Thanks I’ll keep that in mind. I’m using spamassassin because that’s what
the sysadmin has installed. The latest version has a Bayes filter which
seems to help a lot.
There’s probably an advantage to using different programs for filtering
mail. Maybe one can pickup some kinds of spam that the other cannot.
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 04:26:24AM +0900, Seth Kurtzberg wrote:
I’ve recently switched from spamassassin to spambayes with much improved results.
–
brandon@dvalentine.com http://www.geekpunk.net
Pseudo-Random Googlism: texas is required to implement an on
I found the bayes filter in spamassassin to be largely ineffective. But I certainly have no objection to combinations.
···
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 06:46:18 +0900 Daniel Carrera dcarrera@math.umd.edu wrote:
Thanks I’ll keep that in mind. I’m using spamassassin because that’s what
the sysadmin has installed. The latest version has a Bayes filter which
seems to help a lot.
There’s probably an advantage to using different programs for filtering
mail. Maybe one can pickup some kinds of spam that the other cannot.
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 04:26:24AM +0900, Seth Kurtzberg wrote:
I’ve recently switched from spamassassin to spambayes with much improved results.
–
Daniel Carrera | PGP: 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88
Math PhD. UMD | http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html
-
-
-
-
- Weekly Smile * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sign in a hotel in Athens:
Visitors are expected to complain at the office between the hours
of 9 and 11 A.M. daily.
–
Seth Kurtzberg
Research, Development, and Network Operations Center
ISEC.us
480-314-1540
seth@isec.us
I wasn’t suggesting that we use Bayes in ruby-talk, just an upgrade of SA.
For that matter, I don’t think Seth was suggesting that either. I
interpreted his comment to refer to what I could do at my end.
I am using Bayes at my end at it helps a lot.
···
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:13:26AM +0900, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
Bayesian and other probabilistic classifiers require training and would
be a poor choice to employ in an automated remailer.
–
Daniel Carrera | PGP: 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88
Math PhD. UMD | http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html
-
-
-
-
- Weekly Smile * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sign in a hotel in Athens:
Visitors are expected to complain at the office between the hours
of 9 and 11 A.M. daily.
Bayesian and other probabilistic classifiers require training and would
be a poor choice to employ in an automated remailer. To implement a
The SA bayes filter dosnt need to be trained manually. SA simply trains
it with items it deems at SPAM or HAM. This works really well.
You are correct about what I was suggesting.
However, I’ve written some scripts (in Ruby of course) that automate much of the training process.
···
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 07:19:27 +0900 Daniel Carrera dcarrera@math.umd.edu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:13:26AM +0900, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
Bayesian and other probabilistic classifiers require training and would
be a poor choice to employ in an automated remailer.
I wasn’t suggesting that we use Bayes in ruby-talk, just an upgrade of SA.
For that matter, I don’t think Seth was suggesting that either. I
interpreted his comment to refer to what I could do at my end.
I am using Bayes at my end at it helps a lot.
–
Daniel Carrera | PGP: 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88
Math PhD. UMD | http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html
-
-
-
-
- Weekly Smile * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sign in a hotel in Athens:
Visitors are expected to complain at the office between the hours
of 9 and 11 A.M. daily.
–
Seth Kurtzberg
Research, Development, and Network Operations Center
ISEC.us
480-314-1540
seth@isec.us