Re: [SAtalk] SA 2.0 flags sample-nonspam.txt

2002-01-24 Thread Greg Ward
[me, explaining my test run of SA] > No -- I ran a loop like this: > > for msg in greg-spam.mdir/cur/* ; do > echo $msg > out=greg-spam-out.mdir/cur/`basename $msg` > spamassassin -c ~/share/spamassassin -t < $msg> $out > done [dman responded] > How did you invoke mutt? > Was i

Re: [SAtalk] SA 2.0 flags sample-nonspam.txt

2002-01-23 Thread Justin Mason
Greg Ward said: > Anyways, to test SA I run this: > $ spamassassin -t -c ~/share/spamassassin < sample-nonspam.txt Greg -- -t will always add the report (ie. so you can test the filter and see what gets hit). And the report always contains 'this is probably spam' text, whether or not the mai

Re: [SAtalk] SA 2.0 flags sample-nonspam.txt

2002-01-23 Thread dman
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 06:59:58PM -0500, Greg Ward wrote: | On 23 January 2002, Craig Hughes said: | > I'm guessing (from memory w/out actually looking) that the report is | > going to stderr and the processed message to stdout, so that's why mutt | > wasn't seeing it, and why correctly content-l

Re: [SAtalk] SA 2.0 flags sample-nonspam.txt

2002-01-23 Thread Greg Ward
On 23 January 2002, Craig Hughes said: > I'm guessing (from memory w/out actually looking) that the report is > going to stderr and the processed message to stdout, so that's why mutt > wasn't seeing it, and why correctly content-length and lines headers > aren't touched. No -- I ran a loop like

Re: [SAtalk] SA 2.0 flags sample-nonspam.txt

2002-01-23 Thread Craig Hughes
I'm guessing (from memory w/out actually looking) that the report is going to stderr and the processed message to stdout, so that's why mutt wasn't seeing it, and why correctly content-length and lines headers aren't touched.  If you're processing lots of messages, I'd advise using spamd/spamc

Re: [SAtalk] SA 2.0 flags sample-nonspam.txt

2002-01-23 Thread Charlie Watts
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Greg Ward wrote: > On 23 January 2002, Craig Hughes said: > > Nothing unusual here. spamassassin -t will always append that footer, > > just to let you know in detail which tests matched. spamassassin -P > > will not do anything except add the X-Spam-Status: No line. > > Ah

Re: [SAtalk] SA 2.0 flags sample-nonspam.txt

2002-01-23 Thread Greg Ward
On 23 January 2002, Craig Hughes said: > Nothing unusual here. spamassassin -t will always append that footer, > just to let you know in detail which tests matched. spamassassin -P > will not do anything except add the X-Spam-Status: No line. Ahh, I see. I was confused because I ran spamassasi

Re: [SAtalk] SA 2.0 flags sample-nonspam.txt

2002-01-23 Thread Craig Hughes
Nothing unusual here.  spamassassin -t will always append that footer, just to let you know in detail which tests matched.  spamassassin -P will not do anything except add the X-Spam-Status: No line. C On Wed, 2002-01-23 at 14:53, Greg Ward wrote: OK, this is weird; I've just install

[SAtalk] SA 2.0 flags sample-nonspam.txt

2002-01-23 Thread Greg Ward
OK, this is weird; I've just installed SA 2.0 and run it on sample-nonspam.txt. It computes a score of -2, and concludes that this is spammy enough to slap on a "This is probably spam" footer. Note that it does *not* munge the subject or add X-Spam-Status. It seems to get sample-spam.txt right