Hello everyone,
I am new here and I start to use spamassassin as anti-spam solution where i
work, but i have a few questions about it still, and i am not a fluent
english speaker so sorry for any mistakes that i will make.
I am confusied by how the sa-learn works, not really how it works, but how
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Art Greenberg wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
> I'm aware of __* rules, but I'd not noticed T_* rules before. And
> looking back through my spam I don't see any hits until a couple of
> weeks ago, so presumably something
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
I'm aware of __* rules, but I'd not noticed T_* rules before. And looking
back through my spam I don't see any hits until a couple of weeks ago, so
presumably something has changed.
Wait, you're seeing this in a live SA
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
I'm aware of __* rules, but I'd not noticed T_* rules before. And
looking back through my spam I don't see any hits until a couple of
weeks ago, so presumably something has changed.
Wait, you're seeing this in a live SA install?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:05:10 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
Why does T_FROM_MISSPACED score 0.0, when it's score isn't defined?
Rounding. The actual defined score is 0.01, so it rounds down when
reported.
but where is it def
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 17:47 +, RW wrote:
> I'm aware of __* rules, but I'd not noticed T_* rules before. And
> looking back through my spam I don't see any hits until a couple of
> weeks ago, so presumably something has changed.
Yup, the SA version you're running. And along with that change, s
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:11:47 -0600 (CST)
David B Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:05:10 -0800 (PST)
> > John Hardin wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why does T_FROM_MISSPACED score 0.0, when it's score isn't
> > > > defined?
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 11:11 -0600, David B Funk wrote:
> The other special rule name is the hidden rule, one that starts with "__".
> Those rules are assigned a score of 0 but do run regardless and aren't
> reported in the scoring report. The intention there is that they're used
> to form meta-rule
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:05:10 -0800 (PST)
> John Hardin wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
> >
> > > Why does T_FROM_MISSPACED score 0.0, when it's score isn't defined?
> >
> > Rounding. The actual defined score is 0.01, so it rounds down when
> > reported
RW wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:05:10 -0800 (PST)
> John Hardin wrote:
>
>
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Why does T_FROM_MISSPACED score 0.0, when it's score isn't defined?
>>>
>> Rounding. The actual defined score is 0.01, so it rounds down when
>> reported.
>>
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:05:10 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
>
> > Why does T_FROM_MISSPACED score 0.0, when it's score isn't defined?
>
> Rounding. The actual defined score is 0.01, so it rounds down when
> reported.
but where is it defined? greping under /var
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 15:37 +, RW wrote:
> Why does T_FROM_MISSPACED score 0.0, when it's score isn't defined?
It's a T_ testing rule. These don't score the default 1.0 with a missing
explicit score set.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
Why does T_FROM_MISSPACED score 0.0, when it's score isn't defined?
Rounding. The actual defined score is 0.01, so it rounds down when
reported.
X-Spam-Report:
...
* 0.0 T_FROM_MISSPACED From: missing whitespace
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
Why does T_FROM_MISSPACED score 0.0, when it's score isn't defined?
X-Spam-Report:
...
* 0.0 T_FROM_MISSPACED From: missing whitespace
$ grep -r T_FROM_MISSPACED /var/db/spamassassin/
/var/db/spamassassin/3.003000/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf:meta
MONEY_FROM_MISSP T_LO
It "applies" all the rules, in the sense of testing each message for
each condition. If a message matches the conditions of a rule then that
is considered a "hit" on that rule. Rules that "hit" on a message are
listed in the report. Messages that appear, to the human observer, to
be very similar
On 22.02.10 13:02, Personal Técnico wrote:
> I would like to know how SA determines what rules are aplied while
> scanning a mail and what rules not,
only rules that have non-zero score are checked.
> because I have received two mails
> with similar body but applied rules were different.
it
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:14:08 +
Kevin Golding wrote:
> In article <4b827244.2060...@caos.uab.es>, Personal Técnico
> writes
> >Another question: is there any way for configuring SA for getting a
> >detailed score of rules in a mail when "X-Spam-Status: No". By
> >default, SA does a detailed
In article <4b827244.2060...@caos.uab.es>, Personal Técnico
writes
>Another question: is there any way for configuring SA for getting a
>detailed score of rules in a mail when "X-Spam-Status: No". By default,
>SA does a detailed score when mail is marked as SPAM, but not in HAM cases.
add_heade
Hi,
I would like to know how SA determines what rules are aplied while
scanning a mail and what rules not, because I have received two mails
with similar body but applied rules were different.
Another question: is there any way for configuring SA for getting a
detailed score of rules in a ma
19 matches
Mail list logo
