Mailman 3 March 2005 - spambayes-dev

Re: [spambayes-dev] RE: [Spambayes] Jaded Easter Special - Extended daytime opening
by T. Alexander Popiel March 29, 2005

March 29, 2005

In message: <ECBA357DDED63B4995F5C1F5CBE5B1E801DAFFF8(a)its-xchg4.massey.ac.nz> "Tony Meyer" <tameyer(a)ihug.co.nz> writes: > >So hopefully these won't be seen again (if they are, I'll take another >look at the filter). I never saw them in the first place, so I guess my filter is working. ;-) - Alex

1 0

RE: [spambayes-dev] RE: [Spambayes] Jaded Easter Special - Extended daytime opening
by Tony Meyer March 29, 2005

March 29, 2005

[Tony Meyer] >> [snip yet-another-party-spam] >> >> [...] would anyone mind if I added something like >> *(a)mail.sign-up.to [...] to the automatically reject/discard >> address list for the two lists? [Tim Peters] > Go right ahead! I won't miss 'em either <wink>. I considered this a pronouncement and did it, using "^bounce_\d+(a)mail.sign-up.to" as the filter (for discard), which should work if the addresses stay nice and consistent. Looking at http://sign-up.to, "^.+sign-up.to" would probably ok, but maybe there are some legit mail addresses there. So hopefully these won't be seen again (if they are, I'll take another look at the filter). =Tony.Meyer

1 0

RE: [Spambayes] Jaded Easter Special - Extended daytime opening
by Tony Meyer March 29, 2005

March 29, 2005

[snip yet-another-party-spam] These party spams are starting to bug me, since they're reasonably frequent. I know we don't generally filter spambayes(a)python.org or spambayes-dev(a)python.org (and don't really want to reopen that discussion), but would anyone mind if I added something like *(a)mail.sign-up.to (I'll take a look at them and see if I can find a tighter match) to the automatically reject/discard address list for the two lists? (I'll consider no response over the next week as no objection). =Tony.Meyer

2 1

In box - playing a sound on arrival of new mail.
by Jeremy Labram March 24, 2005

March 24, 2005

In box - playing a sound on arrival of new mail. I would like the new mail alerts only to operate when they are 'ham' and not 'ham or spam'. Is there anyway Outlook 2003 / Spambayes can be configured for this. I can find nothing obvious in the help and web-site faqs. Thanks in advance Jeremy Labram, Principal, Charteris plc, tel 07989 330721 (M), 020 7600 9199 (Off) _________________________________________________________________ This message from Charteris plc has been checked for viruses http://www.charteris.com/

1 0

TREC-Spam
by Tony Meyer March 23, 2005

March 23, 2005

I'm planning on participating in TREC 2005 (the spam track) using SpamBayes: <http://trec.nist.gov/> <http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~gvcormac/spam/> Basically the idea is that a whole lot of filters are run over a few corpora (a couple of public and a couple of private) and the results are compared. (Not to say, "hey, my filter is best", but to see what works well, where improvements can be made, and all that). The testing system is similar to our (Alex's) incremental testing setup - the steps are: initialize classify emailfile resultfile train [ham|spam] emailfile resultfile finalize So there is (or can be) training after each classification. I'll create scripts (a modified sb_filter, probably) that do each of the steps. I don't think that train-on-everything is a good idea here, so will include some sort of training regime (like the incremental testing setup), too (maybe train-to-exhaustion?). I'm interested in doing this: o As research that I can work on after I submit my PhD and before I defend it. o To see how spambayes compares with various types of filter/corpus. o As a sideline to other research I'd like to do with spambayes (see #1). To get to the point of the email: o Does anyone object to me using spambayes in this way? Everyone will be acknowledged in the write-ups and all that, obviously, and I'm participating as an individual (with tentative ties to my work, and obviously using the work, but not speaking for, the spambayes group). o Is anyone else interested in this? I can certainly report back as things progress, but if anyone is really interested and can spare the time, I'd happy work on it with someone else. =Tony.Meyer

1 0

RE: [spambayes-dev] Re: Is building with Python 2.4 and not Python 2.3 a bugfix?
by Tony Meyer March 23, 2005

March 23, 2005

> By the way, I've noticed SPAM that used to be classified as SPAM is > now being DEFER'ed. I find this behaviour odd, since 85% of my > e-mail is SPAM, and always has been. By "DEFER'ed", do you mean that it's classified as unsure? This could be either new types of spam, or as a result of new training (e.g. a training mistake, a growing imbalance). The way to figure out why a message scores what it does is to look at the clues for that message (there's a link on the review page). If it's not obvious why it scored what it did, then you can send a copy on to spambayes(a)python.org and someone will comment on it. It's possible that the problem can be fixed by adjusting your thresholds (the defaults are fairly conservative). =Tony.Meyer

2 1

Re: Is building with Python 2.4 and not Python 2.3 a bugfix?
by Tony Meyer March 23, 2005

March 23, 2005

[Tony Meyer, back in November] >> There are various reasons why building the binary with Python 2.4 would be >> better than with Python 2.3, but the important one is that Python 2.4 has >> email 3.0. [...] >> However, 1.0.2 is only for bugfixes, not for new features. >> >> So my question is: is building with the newer Python valid for a bugfix >> release? [Tim Peters] > There's a small chance that 2.4 will introduce a relevant bug, and > then the decision to use it would look imprudent. In that case you'll > be blamed. But if all it does is improve email handling, nobody will > praise you. So there's the moral dilemma: you can improve peoples' > lives, or cover your ass. Since it's not my ass, I vote you expose > it <wink>. Of course, using 2.4 resulted in (at least) three bugs (not having mscvr71.dll, modulefinder problem with bsddb, and the most annoying one with asyncore using up all of people's disk space). As Pratchett would say, those million-to-one chances do seem to crop up nine times out of ten... Anyway, while the first two problems were fixed for 1.0.3, the last one is still a major problem, and I'm sick of dealing with it. I'm going to do a 1.0.4 before Easter (and then run away over the holiday period so that no-one can find me <wink>) that includes the fix for that *and* is built with Python 2.3. People can have their X-SpamBayes-Exceptions back! So if anyone has any other bug fixes they'd like to see in 1.0.4, please commit them ASAP or let me know so I can hold off the build. I'd like to get 1.1a1 (*with* Python 2.4) done tomorrow too, but might not have a chance, in which case I'll get to it next week. There'll definitely be a 1.1a2, so there's not a huge hurry to get things into this release. Any objections? =Tony.Meyer

2 1

RE: [spambayes-dev] 1.0.2 and 1.1a1
by Tony Meyer March 21, 2005

March 21, 2005

As most will probably have seen, I've done the 1.0.2 release. I smoke-tested the source (I've run it lots of times recently, and there are few changes) and did a bit of testing with the binary (turns out using Python 2.4 wasn't as simple as expected). [Tony Meyer] >> Are there any things not done yet that people would like to see in >> 1.1? [Kenny Pitt] > Just a couple of minor ones. Unfortunately, I'm on a tight > deadline at work until at least the end of January. Even with my rough plan there's a month between a1 and a2, so plenty of time to add more :) I think it'd be good to get something out though, since the 'deeper' changes can be tested already and people can give us feedback about various changes. > I'd like to get a tab added to the Manager for configuring > the notification sounds. It may be just edit boxes for the > filenames at first (no browse), but I think we need something > if general users are going to be able to take advantage of it. +1. Browse shouldn't be too hard - you should be able to just call CreateFileDialog, right? I agree that this would be nice before a1, so that people get a feel for the interface. I can hold off until it's done (I'm fairly busy with stuff at the moment, too). > Given that we haven't been able to solve the bsddb > corruption/run-recovery problem, I've completely given up and am happy in my ZODB.FileStorage world <0.1 wink>. I'd like to include the necessary ZODB stuff in a a1 build so that people can give ZODB a go if they would like, assuming that it doesn't bloat the installer too much. However, there still isn't a ZODB release for Python 2.4, so I'd have to build it myself, which I'm not too sure about. Maybe one is coming soon. (Tim would know, I expect). > I wanted to try something > with automatic backups to at least provide a recovery > mechanism. My idea was to detect if the database is still > good when shutting down, How? Back when I was playing with things (and I think Richie found this too, but it's a long time back) I found that you could corrupt the database and the RUN_RECOVERY error wouldn't be triggered until several accesses later. > and if so make a backup copy of the > .db file. When starting up, if the training data is corrupt > then try to restore this "known good" backup and then attempt > the open again. Making a backup could be worth a go, though. Maybe this ought to be an (Outlook experimental) option? It will almost double the amount of disk space that the plug-in requires. > Speaking of translations, have you been able to build a > binary since the translation support was added? Whenever I > try to run setup_all.py, I get the following error: > > """ > running py2exe > running build_py > error: package directory 'spambayes\resources' does not exist """ That's unrelated to the translation stuff. It's a distutils change, IIRC - I checked in a fix to the 1.0.x branch, but never got around to checking it into HEAD. I'll do that now. =Tony.Meyer

3 5

the plan for the weekend
by Sarah March 19, 2005

March 19, 2005

1 0

the plan for the weekend
by Sarah March 18, 2005

March 18, 2005

1 0