bogofilter behavior

bogofilter behavior

[Harry Putnam]

This may be a little out of line for this groups.

The bogofilter mail list seems to be pretty dead.  So please bare with
me for moment.

I'm using bogofilter in procmail not gnus, but if someone is familiar
please talk to me off list.

I'm using the most primitive setup.  Where procmail runs bogofilter
then checks the bogofilter header for spammyness.

In bogo_spam.in group some false positives occur and I run them back
thru bogofilter according to my reading of the man pages, this should
correct any misfiling that occured in bogo data base.  

`bogofilter -v -Sn < MSG_NUM (a false positive file name)

However some of these false hits have recurred several times and are
very similar.  I was under the impression that the above command would
tell bogofilter these are not spam.  It seems to have no effect.

The message type that has recurred the most are those auto things from
gmane about posting on groups.  Why doesn't bogofilter catch on?

Is my command supposed to do what I think it is?

Re: bogofilter behavior

[Harry Putnam]

Reiner Steib <4.uce.03.r.s@nurfuerspam.de> writes:

> ,----[ bogofilter(1) ]
> | 	The  -S  option  tells   bogofilter  to  register  the  text
> | 	presented  on standard  input as  spam and  to undo  a prior
> | 	registration of the same message as non-spam.
> |
> | 	The  -N  option  tells   bogofilter  to  register  the  text
> | 	presented on standard input as  non-spam and to undo a prior
> | 	registration of the same message as spam.
> `----

Reiner on a closer look at the above citation I see it is direct
conflict with my man page.  Where did you get that from?

I had the right formula according to my man page for version:
     bogofilter --version
  bogofilter version 0.92.2.cvs

man 1 bogofilter:
   [...]
       The -S option tells bogofilter to undo a prior registration of the same
       message as spam. If a message was incorrectly entered as spam  by  ’-s’
       or ’-u’ and you want to remove it and enter it as non-spam, use options
       ’-Sn’. If ’-S’ is used for a message that wasn’t  registered  as  spam,
       the counts will still be decremented.
   [...]

Just the reverse of what you posted.

Re: bogofilter behavior

[Harry Putnam]

Reiner Steib <4.uce.03.r.s@nurfuerspam.de> writes:

> It seems that the meaning of those have changed [2].  I hope that the
> values in `spam.el' are suitable for current bogofilter:
>
> spam-bogofilter-spam-switch "-s"
> spam-bogofilter-ham-switch "-n"
> spam-bogofilter-spam-strong-switch "-S"
> spam-bogofilter-ham-strong-switch "-N"

On the surface it would appear not...

Re: bogofilter behavior

[Matthias Andree]

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:

> Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> Check bogofilter -vvv what it thinks and what token make that message
>> "spammy" - and what the counts were.
>
> Thanks for your response.  And I saw your test appear on bogofilter
> group on gmane.
>
> For the record.  What I was talking about in my gnu.emacs.gnus post
> was that I had attempted a post on gmane.  Got the auto responder and
> responded.  Then got a notice that it was a subscribe only list.

Yes indeed it is, to catch the (still only a few messages a day) spam.

> Went to website and subbed.

The subscription needs to be acknowledged before it becomes effective -
but David or I should have seen your post held for moderation and have
then the choice to reject, approve, discard -- and both David and I look
at the posts before deciding.

I'll Bcc: David on this post so he knows what's going on.

> I can't find evidence of any of this on my spools now.  I'm not sure
> what went wrong but it seems my messags never got there or something,
> but then why would I get the auto response from gmane...
>
> Maybe I crashed the browser while subbing or something.
>
> Anyway, you've fully answered my questions for now.  So I think I'll
> go subscribe again.

I have seen the notification that you are subscribed; if you prefer to
read via GMANE, you can go to the listinfo site (where you have
subscribed) and change your options to "nomail" -- to post, you'd still
send to bogofilter@bogofilter.org.

Followup-To: poster - please answer by mail if there is further need for
discussion.

-- 
Matthias Andree

Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95 (PGP/MIME preferred)

Re: bogofilter behavior

[Matthias Andree]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004, matthias.andree@gmx.de wrote:
>
>> Ted, you would have to use bogofilter -V instead (capital letter 'V'
>> vee).
>
> OK.  I don't use Bogofilter so I'd appreciate your help.
>
> VERSION: spam ham spam-strong ham-strong
> 0.11.0: -s -n -S -N
>
> Can you continue the table?

Not at this time, the meaning of spam-strong and ham-strong is unclear
to me and doesn't stand out in the documentation.

-s/-n - REGISTER message as spam/ham (ham = non-spam)
-S/-N - UNREGISTER message as spam/ham (undo a registration, must use
        the same message)

These options can be combined, to fix up a false training, -Sn moves a
message from spam to ham and -Ns moves it from ham to spam.

>> I'd suggest refusing to work with bogofilter versions older than
>> 0.10.2 and it's recommended to warn about versions older than 0.17.5
>> which is now three months old. Remember that bogofilter 0.X versions
>> are still under development.
>
> It's hard to give the boot to the users like that.

The users chose to use a development version, with all the implications
such as a minor release becoming incompatible with the previous,
anything but the current version unsupported, frequent updates and the
like.

0.11.0, when the meaning of the registration options was changed for the
last time, was released in March 2003 - over 17 months ago, which is an
entire era for a software under development.

It's sensible to request frequent updates of users using a development
version. Don't waste your time on the 0.1 % of machines that run
outdated bogofilter versions - use the registration as mentioned above
and refuse work with versions before and excluding 0.11.0.

> Gnus is in Emacs, and that means we have to handle old software too
> occasionally.

It's not going to help anybody if someone uses some two-year-old version
of bogofilter today.

-- 
Matthias Andree

NOTE YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE MY MAIL IF YOU'RE USING SPF!
Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95 (PGP/MIME preferred)

Re: bogofilter behavior

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, matthias.andree@gmx.de wrote:

> Looking at the NEWS file however I can only again discourage using
> bogofilter versions that old. Missing features, missing tuning, missing
> accuracy, and so on.

Can any other Bogofilter users comment please?  If this is the
general sentiment I'll gladly go with Matthias.

> Whether you use 0.11.2 or 0.92.4, -n -N -s -S are the same. Versions
> before 0.11 used -S instead of -Ns and -N instead of -Sn.

My point is that the switches may change again.  I'll assume they are
stable for now.

> I do believe your fear for bogus bug reports is unsubstantiated if
> the refusal is worded properly, something along the lines "Sorry,
> spam.el is not compatible with your older version of bogofilter but
> has been developed with a more recent bogofilter version in mind. If
> you plan to upgrade your bogofilter version; spam.el requires at
> least bogofilter version 0.11.2, it is advisable to get at least
> 0.15.13 though."

OK, I can put that in spam.el, I would just like one more vote for it
so I know people are using the bogofilter support :)

I'll make it conditional on whether spam-use-bogofilter is set when
spam.el is loaded.

Ted

Re: bogofilter behavior

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, reinersteib+from-uce@imap.cc wrote:

> Well, `spam.el' calling bogofilter with wrong options can be
> considered as a bug.  :-)

Does it now in the 5.10 branch?  If yes, I'll fix it.

Ted

Re: bogofilter behavior

[Harry Putnam]

Sorry to butt in here but Reiner seems to be an experienced bogofilter
user.  I could use a little more coacing if you want to reply off
line.  Or here if it seems suitable.

I'm not even using bogo in gnus so really off topic... BUT:

$ bogofilter --version
bogofilter version 0.92.2.cvs

I run it from procmail, and just a really simple setup.  Anything
ending up in bogo_spam that is not spam, I've written a really simple
bash function to run it thru again from the command line.
(wrapped for mail)
  bogos () \
  { cd /home/reader/Mail/bogo_spam;bogofilter -vvv -Sn <"$1";cd-; }

Where $1 is taken from the status line in gnus that shows the
file name.

This seems to not really do anything.  Certain kinds of messages have
shown up in bogospam repeatedly.  An example might be the autoresponse
things that gmane sends out.

I've run at least a 2 dozen and more back thru bogo but still they land
in bogo_spam.  Seems like bogofilter is not learning anything from the
reruns.

Re: bogofilter behavior

[Reiner Steib]

On Sat, Oct 02 2004, Harry Putnam wrote:

> Sorry to butt in here but Reiner seems to be an experienced bogofilter
> user.  

As my provider provides the setup described in (info "(gnus)Spam ELisp
Package Configuration Examples"), I wouldn't even have to know that
bogofilter is running behind the scene.  It just works for me.  Please
ask on the bogofilter list (aka gmane.mail.bogofilter.general).

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/