Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Spam being scored with BAYES_00

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    26
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Spam being scored with BAYES_00

    I have been fighting poor spam filtering performance on my Zimbra server for months now, and it seems the most frustrating aspect of it is that my bayes database gets poisoned with spam within a couple of weeks of being reset.

    I did this about two weeks ago, and today I noticed many obvious spam, following the same pattern as spam I have been marking as Junk for the past two weeks, ending up with a BAYES_00 test hit. Is there anything I can do to make the bayesian filter not recognize these as ham? I'm not exactly clear as to why they are hitting on this test, actually - are all messages trained as ham until such time they are marked as spam? I did an initial import of about 3,000 ham messages, but since that time I haven't trained anything as ham. Yet, clearly it thinks these are ham.

    What about giving a BAYES_00 test a score of -0.001 instead of -2.599? That would catch a TON of our spam, and I'm not sure that it would allow many ham to be recognized as spam - the BAYES_00 test seems to catch more junk than real ham anyway.

    Any other good strategies out there? I am also thinking of upping the score for SPAMCOP_BL to like 3.5. I don't see too many false positives coming from that test.

    Overall, our filter performs at about 74% efficiency on my inbox and lets through many obvious stock and drug sale spam (not just the GIF-based ones, even the text based ones). One user had 800 spam to 13 ham waiting for her this morning from the weekend. Users are starting to revolt. :-/

    All ideas appreciated!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Thatcher, AZ
    Posts
    5,606
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    What version are you using?

    Early versions of 4.5 had a bug with BAYES.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    26
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    I am using 4.5.3. I do recall the bug, but I think that was prior to 4.5.3. I think the bug had something to do with not preserving the bayes database, right? I have reset it multiple times since then anyway. Or was it some other bug?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Thatcher, AZ
    Posts
    5,606
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Yeah, it was 4.5.1 I think.

    Try upgrading to 4.5.4 (coming soon:4.5.5) and try again.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    26
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    According to the release notes there were no changes to the spam subsystem for 4.5.3 -> 4.5.4. I am trying to avoid upgrading for the sake of upgrading. I don't believe this would affect what I am seeing.

    Does anyone know when messages are identified as ham? Is there any other way a message would be able to get a BAYES_00 hit unless it or messages very similar to it had been previously identified as ham?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Thatcher, AZ
    Posts
    5,606
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    No, but there is a script that fixes/repairs the BAYES DB incase it got moved out of the way.

Similar Threads

  1. Trying to understand Zimbra's anti-spam system
    By TaskMaster in forum Users
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-25-2008, 09:59 AM
  2. [SOLVED] Reject SPAM
    By s0undt3ch in forum Users
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-22-2007, 04:07 AM
  3. Spam question (all related)
    By dlochart in forum Administrators
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-24-2007, 09:58 AM
  4. Training spam and ham
    By Justin in forum Developers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-31-2006, 03:39 PM
  5. Spam questions 3.11
    By cdyer in forum Administrators
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-22-2006, 11:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •