Banned Domains

[tribble]

Since upgrading to the Barca build prior to 1000 (I can't recall the build number but I think it started somewhere around build 985) and including the release, I've noticed that the Banned Domains that I have are not causing emails to be flagged as spam. In fact, I've seen my overall percentage drop from ~98% to less than 80%. There is zero evidence that the banned domains list is being used at all.

I've since reset my statistics today and receive this:

8,762 junk
7,516 good

18 special filters
27% of incoming messages (3) have been filtered as junk with -54.55% accuracy (17 missed) and 0.00% false positives (o missed)

Yes, that's a negative sign in from of the 54.55%.

I've tried renaming my corpi and starting from scratch with abysmal results ( <80%) after ~1,000 messages.

I am interested in any suggestions. I have read, and continually read nearly every message on this server, tried a number of options but can't seem to find the cause. I have uninstalled, reinstalled also...

Thanks,

Gene

Eric, I just realized, I should have posted this in the Junk mail category, would you move this please? Thx.

[Pete]

I moved it for you, Gene. Eric already helps people too much in these forums.

[tribble]

Thanks Pete

[tribble]

Update:

After trying many things to resolve this issue and the horriffic performance of the bayes filters, I once again uninstalled Barca. This time however, I deleted the barci.ini file and reinstalled (I had never deleted this file in the past). Since then, the bayes filters see to be working as my statistics have shot up to >95% (still not where it used to be) HOWEVER:

It appears that the banned domains (or banned senders) are NOT being utilized. I routinely look at the spam that makes it into my inbox. If I don't recognize the domain, I ban it. Then, I use the function "Classify as Junk and move".

Periodically, I'll check the Junk Mail folder, select all messages in it, go to the Junk Mail Fitering window and select "Junk" 1-5 times. Normally, the junk word corpi increases.

If I could get the banned domain/sender feature to actually work, I believe my accuracy would increase to >99%.

Does anyone have ANY ideas as to why this is not being utilized?

[tribble]

Three months after my post in regard to banned domains, I'm no closer to resolving the problem. My previous question still stands...

[Michael]

Can you please verify that the "Run standard non-Bayesian filters" box is checked. It is on the "General Settings" tab of the "Junk Mail Filtering" window.

[tribble]

Confirmed. It is checked...

I have over 300 banned domains, yet I routinely receive mail from these domains...

[Michael]

Can you run one other test, try selecting one of these messages and use the "Apply and Test" button from the Junk Mail Filter ing window. Do you see an item that contains "(From %junksenders%)"?

[tribble]

Using one as an example, where I am sure is in the banned domain:

The line in question reads:

+100 [FROM=%JUNKSENDERS%] (From %junksenders%)

What is interesting is the 2nd line:

"would NOT be considered junk mail at any sensitivity. [XPS-2]

[Michael]

From what you are reporting the banned domains are being honored, the question is why a score of -2 is being calculated. What other items are shown in this report? (You can also copy the X-Poco-Score headers from the message by viewing the full message headers).

[tribble]

Michael,

Here is the (nearly) complete header from a message I just received, WITH the domain having been banned (frankly, it's all gibberesh to me...). This message appeared in my inbox, when I ran the "apply and test", it reported it would NOT be considered junk at any setting:

Code: Select all

Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:57:17 -0100
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.728)
Delivery-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:02:43
Status: U
X-Poco-Score-Detail: -100 [%BAYES%=P=0;T=90;BIAS=+20] (%bayes% P=0;T=90;Bias=+20)
X-Poco-Score-Detail: -4 [TO=%ADDRESSBOOKS%]OR[CC=%ADDRESSBOOKS%] (To %addressbooks%, or Cc %addressbooks%)
X-Poco-Score-Detail: +2 [FROM=%ADDRESSBOOKS%] (From %addressbooks%)
X-Poco-Score-Detail: +100 [FROM=%JUNKSENDERS%] (From %junksenders%)
X-Poco-Scored: -2
Subject: online directory
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Poco-UID: 53572975
X-Poco-Status: R

[Michael]

Poco's junk mail filtering works on the basis of a score that is calculated for the message. In this case:

Code: Select all

X-Poco-Score-Detail: -100 [%BAYES%=P=0;T=90;BIAS=+20]

This is crediting the message with 100 points (towards it being considered a good message). This is because the Bayesian filters did not consider the message to be spam.

Code: Select all

X-Poco-Score-Detail: -4 [TO=%ADDRESSBOOKS%]OR[CC=%ADDRESSBOOKS%]

This is crediting the message with 4 points since the list of people it is sent to includes someone in one of your address books.

Code: Select all

X-Poco-Score-Detail: +2 [FROM=%ADDRESSBOOKS%]

This is debitting the message score by 2 points since it was not sent from someone whose email address is in one of your address books.

Code: Select all

X-Poco-Score-Detail: +100 [FROM=%JUNKSENDERS%]

This is debiting the message score by 100 points since it was sent from someone whose address or domain you have banned.

The resulting score is -2, which will always result in the message being considered good. For your purposes you can lower the "Junk Score" for the message (the value a message receives by virtue of not being considered junk by the Bayesian filters). To do this open the "Junk Mail Filtering" window, go to the "Bayesian" tab and move the slider for the "Junk Score" to the left. You don't need to decrease the score by a whole lot, perhaps to 85 or so. (The exact value would depend on the sensitivity level you have set on the "General Settings" tab of this window).

An alternative to this would be to add a filter to move any messages from banned domains to your junk mail mailbox. I provided instructions for this awhile back (I believe it may have been in the Scripting forum). I don't have time to chase this posting down now, you should be able to find it, if not please post back and someone may be able to direct you to it.

[tribble]

Thanks Michael! I'll track down the script...

[Michael]

It isn't a scripted solution, the person had asked for a script to do something and I demonstrated how it could be done with standard filter operations including the "%file%" tag and it was in this thread.

[Guest]

How will i know hen it is done? !