On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:44:28PM -0700 or thereabouts, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Sean McCrohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This is my first week with SpamAssassin, so I may be missing something
> > obvious, but the message I've attached sections of below puzzled me.
> > While the body report s
Sean McCrohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is my first week with SpamAssassin, so I may be missing something
> obvious, but the message I've attached sections of below puzzled me.
> While the body report scores it at 7.1 points, the X-Spam-Status in
> the header only gives it 1.8 - this is
At 04:59 PM 9/25/03 -0400, Sean McCrohan wrote:
This is my first week with SpamAssassin, so I may be missing something
obvious, but the message I've attached sections of below puzzled me.
While the body report scores it at 7.1 points, the X-Spam-Status in
the header only gives it 1.8 - this is the
Comments inline:
Dirk Nienhaus said:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Since some of the emails from this list had already been processed by
>> somebody else's spamassassin (the sender's perhaps?) and had the
>> X-Spam-Status header, my procmail rule bypassed the spamassassin filter.
>
> Hi, at first
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since some of the emails from this list had already been processed by
somebody else's spamassassin (the sender's perhaps?) and had the
X-Spam-Status header, my procmail rule bypassed the spamassassin filter.
Hi, at first thank you for the fast answer!
if i understand you r
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 19:08, Dirk Nienhaus wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Since some of the emails from this list had already been processed by
> > somebody else's spamassassin (the sender's perhaps?) and had the
> > X-Spam-Status header, my procmail rule bypassed the spamassassin filter.
Dirk,
I noticed that same effect while reading this list (sa-talk). Turns out
it was my flawed attempt at processed emails only once by spamassassin.
My faulty logic in procmail skipped piping through spamassassin if the
header X-Spam-Status already existed.
Since some of the emails from this l
They should be there, here's a sample one from spamassassin -t
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=18.4 required=5.5
tests=ALL_CAPS_HEADER,DATE_IN_PAST_24_48,DRASTIC_REDUCED,
FROM_HAS_MIXED_NUMS,HOME_EMPLOYMENT,INVALID_DATE,
INVALID_MSGID,LINES_OF_YELLING,MSGID_HAS_NO_AT,
Well, after further investigations it looks like it actually is
spamassassin which is giving the problems. It checks the message in
0.00112 seconds with razor! The problem is when the message has big
attachments!
- Peter
> On Wed, 06 Nov 2002 10:40:34 +0100
> "Peter M. Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 06 Nov 2002 10:40:34 +0100
"Peter M. Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After upgrading to qmail-scanner 1.15 I suddenly get some x-spam-status
> Yes even though spamassassin is not even run. Further it is not spam. I
> just snip' ing one of the mailheaders. I'm running spamassasin 2
* Mike Burger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 09 21, 02 at 00:50:
> I have "X-Spam-Status" in every message that SA scans.
SA scanning is different than when Amavisd-new calls SA modules to spam
scan. Amavisd-new does not call all SA modules, such as adding the
X-Spam-Status header for all ema
Aaahhh...oops...i'm not running through Amavis. Please ignore my last
reply.
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Mike Leone wrote:
> * Avi Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 09 20, 02 at 23:57:
> > Is SA supposed to always insert a X-Spam-Status tag?
> >
> > I just started using SA + Postfix + amav
I have "X-Spam-Status" in every message that SA scans.
On 20 Sep 2002, Avi Schwartz wrote:
> Is SA supposed to always insert a X-Spam-Status tag?
>
> I just started using SA + Postfix + amavisd-new and it seems to me that
> SA does not insert this tag into non-spam messages. Is this correct?
>
* Avi Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 09 20, 02 at 23:57:
> Is SA supposed to always insert a X-Spam-Status tag?
>
> I just started using SA + Postfix + amavisd-new and it seems to me that
> SA does not insert this tag into non-spam messages. Is this correct?
Correct. Amavisd-new on
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 10:35:33AM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > > # $head is a Mail::Header object, fyi.
> > > my $SAstatus = $head->get("X-Spam-Status") || "No, tests=\n";
...
> I could do $head->unfold('X-Spam-Status'), but not $SAstatus->unfold()
> ($SAsta
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 10:35:33AM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > # $head is a Mail::Header object, fyi.
> > my $SAstatus = $head->get("X-Spam-Status") || "No, tests=\n";
> >
> > # Figure out if the message is considered spam or not
> > $SAstatus =~ s/\n\t+\s+//g; # unfold long s
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> # $head is a Mail::Header object, fyi.
> my $SAstatus = $head->get("X-Spam-Status") || "No, tests=\n";
>
> # Figure out if the message is considered spam or not
> $SAstatus =~ s/\n\t+\s+//g; # unfold long sections
> $SAstatus =~ s
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 11:12:41AM +0100, Vaclav Barta wrote:
> I agree the new version looks nicer and easier to read, but is it
> *meant* to be read? Personally, I want to parse it, and the whitespace
> just gets in the way... I know it's *possible* to parse it, but I'm lazy
> - is there some co
Derek Broughton wrote:
DB> make sense to be rounding a result of 4.55 or even 4.95 up to 5 (though to
DB> be pedantic, you can't round 4.9 _down_ to 4.9 - that's truncation
Round (v): to make round, to convert into something round
Round (n): A low-precision number
So why exactly can't you r
Craig wrote:
> Well, I think that better than comparing the rounded number, we should
> instead compare the real numbers, and just round down instead.
> So 4.9 would be
> displayed as 4.9 not 5.0 -- it's less mathematically correct, but makes it
> clearer why 5.0 < 5.0 sometimes.
Which is fi
Well, I think that better than comparing the rounded number, we should instead
compare the real numbers, and just round down instead. So 4.9 would be
displayed as 4.9 not 5.0 -- it's less mathematically correct, but makes it
clearer why 5.0 < 5.0 sometimes.
C
Derek Broughton wrote:
DB> > M
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Derek Broughton wrote:
> > Might be worth doing the check on the rounded number, just to eliminate
> > the visual confusion.
>
> I wouldn't say _just_ to eliminate the visual confusion. If the header had
> been:
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.999 required=5.0
> it would ha
> Might be worth doing the check on the rounded number, just to eliminate
> the visual confusion.
I wouldn't say _just_ to eliminate the visual confusion. If the header had
been:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.999 required=5.0
it would have been correct. If the header tells me the hit count wa
Computing Services Fax: (573) 341-4216
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Sergeant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 8:11 AM
> To: Derek Broughton
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] X-Spam-Status: No, hit
Derek Broughton wrote:
> This looks strange - it hit my triggering limit exactly, and isn't
> considered spam. Why?
Floating point inaccuracies. Witness:
$ perl -le 'printf "%0.1f vs %0.1f", 4., 5.0'
Matt.
___
Have big pipes
25 matches
Mail list logo
