On Feb 20, 2014, at 8:07 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> No need to run through 3.3.2. The emails are well over the 256KB limit hard
> coded in sa-learn with 3.3.2.
Understood, and thanks for checking on this. Now that I know this is the
problem, I've manually edited Mail::SpamAssassin::Archiv
On 2/20/2014 7:18 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
If you have a chance, please run it through both 3.3.2 and 3.4.0, to
see if there's a difference... clearly, it's not working on _MY_ 3.3.2
for some reason! I sent the exact commands that I used in a prior
email a couple of hours ago. Thanks. =) ---
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:57:17 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
Amir> When I run sa-learn on this mailbox, it says:
Amir> Learned tokens from 0 message(s) (0 message(s) examined)
John> "0 messages examined" generally means either the format isn't what
Jo
On Feb 20, 2014, at 7:07 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> In my case it usually means the message has been learned already and SA
> just refuses to do so for the 2nd time :-)
When I run sa-learn on already-learned messages, it says 0 tokens learned, but
it still says N messages examined (where N > 0)
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:57:17 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
Amir> When I run sa-learn on this mailbox, it says:
Amir> Learned tokens from 0 message(s) (0 message(s) examined)
John> "0 messages examined" generally means either the format isn't what
John> sa-learn expected, or the message is larg
Hi,
We received about a thousand messages today that passed greylisting
and were then quarantined due to razor, an RBL, and a few other rules.
However, it also hit bayes00, and just wondered if someone could help
me determine if it should have been classified as bayes00 (and
therefore perhaps shou
On Thu, February 20, 2014 5:13 pm, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Resend the mbox.link and I will likely have a cycle to throw it through.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m4fuv670wnvwa16/SA_testspam.mbox
To be deleted in 24-48 hours (don't want spammers harvesting it).
If you have a chance, please run it t
Resend the mbox.link and I will likely have a cycle to throw it through.
Regards,
KAM
Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
>On Thu, February 20, 2014 4:08 pm, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> Probably best if you install 3.4.0 (or even trunk) on a test system
>and
>> throw the offending email onto that server and r
On Thu, February 20, 2014 4:08 pm, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Probably best if you install 3.4.0 (or even trunk) on a test system and
> throw the offending email onto that server and run sa-learn on that box
> with -D.
In the meantime, anyone want to do it on my behalf? =) I provided the
mbox link
On 2/20/2014 6:01 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
On Thu, February 20, 2014 3:52 pm, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Questions that will be answered by "that is solved in 3.4.0" aren't
really going to get much support from me...
Understood, though it'll be a while before I can upgrade to 3.4 due to the
RPM
On 2/20/2014 5:56 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
With the sa-update channel problems now behind us I have upgraded
again to 3.4.0 and am using it. It appears now that using -D turns
off Bayes?
spamassassin -d -t -D < mail.file | less
No BAYES_* anything is recorded. Versus using:
spamassassin -
On Thu, February 20, 2014 3:52 pm, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Questions that will be answered by "that is solved in 3.4.0" aren't
> really going to get much support from me...
Understood, though it'll be a while before I can upgrade to 3.4 due to the
RPM issue that I've mentioned previously. Howev
With the sa-update channel problems now behind us I have upgraded
again to 3.4.0 and am using it. It appears now that using -D turns
off Bayes?
spamassassin -d -t -D < mail.file | less
No BAYES_* anything is recorded. Versus using:
spamassassin -d -t < mail.file | less
Where BAYES_* scori
On 2/20/2014 5:48 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 17:29 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
More to the point, spamc would have to process all config files first
which would slow it down. The point of spamc is to be a VERY
lightweight connection to spamd.
That's why I suggested th
On 2/20/2014 5:38 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
On Thu, February 20, 2014 3:29 pm, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Unifying wouldn't be something I would want to see.
Well, no one is arguing to _force_ unification, but to provide an option
for it. That is, max-size could be set in local.cf and would beco
On 2014-02-20 23:16, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Are you using 3.4.0? I believe the size was hard-coded until then
when the max-size option was added to sa-learn.
SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07)
yes i do ebuilds for gentoo self
3.4 is not in gentoo yet
Kevin: do i need to be reply private here
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 17:29 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> More to the point, spamc would have to process all config files first
> which would slow it down. The point of spamc is to be a VERY
> lightweight connection to spamd.
>
That's why I suggested that spamc could be handed that value by
On Thu, February 20, 2014 3:29 pm, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Unifying wouldn't be something I would want to see.
Well, no one is arguing to _force_ unification, but to provide an option
for it. That is, max-size could be set in local.cf and would become a
global parameter, but could still be over
I think you were just on the email
chain on list so my reply to another person went to you.
On 2/20/2014 5:21 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2014-02-20 23:16, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Are you using 3.4.0? I believe the size
was hard-c
On Thu, February 20, 2014 3:16 pm, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Are you using 3.4.0? I believe the size was hard-coded until then when
> the max-size option was added to sa-learn.
No, as mentioned previously in this flurry of emails, I'm using 3.3.2.
However, note that using spamassassin directly (
On 2/20/2014 5:16 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 16:39 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/20/2014 4:35 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
If it's a size issue, how can I increase the size limit for sa-learn?
But, I don't think it's a size issue since these messages are under 512k
eac
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 16:39 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 2/20/2014 4:35 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
> > If it's a size issue, how can I increase the size limit for sa-learn?
> > But, I don't think it's a size issue since these messages are under 512k
> > each.
> --max-size= I believe. Defaul
On 2/20/2014 5:07 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
On Thu, February 20, 2014 2:49 pm, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2014-02-20 22:39, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
--max-size= I believe. Default is 256K.
sa-learn barfs, that flag is not accepted. That flag works for spamc, but
not for sa-learn. sa-learn man
That was it! Thanks So Much!
On 02/20/2014 12:54 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
psychobyte,
I'm trying to do some filtering on the originating IP address of a
message using a custom plugin on SA-3.3.2-r1
I have this variable set in my .cf file(same as trusted networks var):
awl_ignore_networks
On Thu, February 20, 2014 2:49 pm, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 2014-02-20 22:39, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> --max-size= I believe. Default is 256K.
sa-learn barfs, that flag is not accepted. That flag works for spamc, but
not for sa-learn. sa-learn man page and CLI help don't have any mention
of
On 2014-02-20 22:56, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
I run a virtual-hosting server where the individual site RPMs are
copied
from server-level RPMs. Basically all software has to be installed as
RPMs
in order to propagate to the individual virtual hosts.
google on dist2rpm, you basicly just use sour
On Thu, February 20, 2014 2:39 pm, Axb wrote:
> what's wrong with installing from source?
I run a virtual-hosting server where the individual site RPMs are copied
from server-level RPMs. Basically all software has to be installed as RPMs
in order to propagate to the individual virtual hosts.
---
On 2014-02-20 22:39, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/20/2014 4:35 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
If it's a size issue, how can I increase the size limit for sa-learn?
But, I don't think it's a size issue since these messages are under
512k
each.
--max-size= I believe. Default is 256K.
and small m
On 2014-02-20 22:39, Axb wrote:
noticed? (I can't install 3.4 since it hasn't been RPM'd for CentOS
5.x
yet.)
what's wrong with installing from source?
(NOT Cpan install)
http://searchcode.com/codesearch/view/21483839
the harddest part is to know howto :=)
On 2/20/2014 4:39 PM, Axb wrote:
On 02/20/2014 10:35 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
Note that I have some other spams for which this is now an issue but
which
I think worked fine in the past (with SA 3.3.1 for sure); is it possible
something got borked in sa-learn between 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 and nobody
On 2/20/2014 4:35 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
If it's a size issue, how can I increase the size limit for sa-learn?
But, I don't think it's a size issue since these messages are under 512k
each.
--max-size= I believe. Default is 256K.
On 02/20/2014 10:35 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
Note that I have some other spams for which this is now an issue but which
I think worked fine in the past (with SA 3.3.1 for sure); is it possible
something got borked in sa-learn between 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 and nobody
noticed? (I can't install 3.4 sin
On Thu, February 20, 2014 12:57 pm, John Hardin wrote:
> "0 messages examined" generally means either the format isn't what
> sa-learn expected, or the message is larger than the size limit.
The file format is most certainly MBOX... it was created by my MUA, and
running "file" on it tells me that
On 2014-02-20 21:43, Axb wrote:
Redis DB in RAM - do the math :)
got results as 781250
now its time to see how much power so many pi' is using :=)
have anyone thinked about running mysql in memory ?, if its slow?
engine=memory in the spamd init script, and engine=myisam on shutdown
yes
On 2/20/2014 3:07 PM, Wade Rossmann wrote:
I'm using SpamAssassin via MimeDefang and trying to load user
preferences in from a mySQL database. I've tried adding the
user_scores_sql_* config items in the config file, but these seem to
be ignored by everything except spamd -q. I've more or less g
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Alex wrote:
> >I also don't see any references to BAYES_999 on my v3.4.0 system,
> >including in the updates.spamassassin.org channel updates. What am I
> >doing wrong?
>
> Nothing. There is an issue where the SA rules didn't update due to
> spam corpora followed immediat
On 02/20/2014 07:46 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2014-02-20 19:34, Axb wrote:
well, not huge...let me brag :)
sa-learn --dump magic
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 17663091 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 06768342
I'm using SpamAssassin via MimeDefang and trying to load user
preferences in from a mySQL database. I've tried adding the
user_scores_sql_* config items in the config file, but these seem to be
ignored by everything except spamd -q. I've more or less given up on
making that work [but if someone
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Amir Caspi wrote:
When I run sa-learn on this mailbox, it says:
Learned tokens from 0 message(s) (0 message(s) examined)
"0 messages examined" generally means either the format isn't what
sa-learn expected, or the message is larger than the size limit.
--
John Hardin
On 2/20/2014 2:09 PM, Daniel Staal wrote:
--As of February 20, 2014 1:56:18 PM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail is
alleged to have said:
People have hard_coded BAYES_999 entries as well. I recommend
forwarding the announcement from John to the other mailing lists you are
aware of these discussions.
On Feb 20, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Have you tried learning one specific FN, then reprocessing that message
> to see what Bayes score it gets? IME it will usually shift from
> BAYES_00 to at least BAYES_40 in most cases, even with a large sitewide
> DB with far more tokens than th
--As of February 20, 2014 1:56:18 PM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail is alleged to
have said:
People have hard_coded BAYES_999 entries as well. I recommend
forwarding the announcement from John to the other mailing lists you are
aware of these discussions.
--As for the rest, it is mine.
I intend t
On 2/20/2014 1:31 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Daniel Staal wrote:
--As of February 20, 2014 9:23:56 AM -0800, John Hardin is alleged to
have said:
BAYES_99 is being reverted to its original definition and BAYES_999 is
being converted to an overlapping additive rule that add
On 2014-02-20 19:34, Axb wrote:
well, not huge...let me brag :)
sa-learn --dump magic
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db
version
0.000 0 17663091 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 06768342 0 non-token data: nham
how many r
On 02/20/2014 06:44 PM, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Axb wrote:
I hope you're running SA 3.4 so:
I am still on 3.3.2 because nobody has yet packaged 3.4 for CentOS
5.x, from what I can tell. I have the package from the
rpmforge-extras repo, and 3.3.2 is still the most cur
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Daniel Staal wrote:
--As of February 20, 2014 9:23:56 AM -0800, John Hardin is alleged to have
said:
BAYES_99 is being reverted to its original definition and BAYES_999 is
being converted to an overlapping additive rule that adds some more
points to BAYES_99 for the ve
--As of February 20, 2014 9:23:56 AM -0800, John Hardin is alleged to have
said:
BAYES_99 is being reverted to its original definition and BAYES_999 is
being converted to an overlapping additive rule that adds some more
points to BAYES_99 for the very top end of Bayes score.
If you have locall
Amir Caspi wrote:
> Bayes is set to autolearn, and I manually run sa-learn about once a week on
> my spam folder (to learn the FNs, plus lower-scoring spam that was not
> autolearned).
Try setting up a cron job to run this daily or even as often as hourly.
The faster you get feedback into the s
On 2014-02-20 18:06, Amir Caspi wrote:
for whatever reason, many of the FNs I've been getting lately are
passing because they hit BAYES_00, even though they are matching
AC_SPAMMY_URI_PATTERNS. I need to enable bayes tokens in the headers
so I can see why these are considered so hammy when I kn
On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Axb wrote:
> I hope you're running SA 3.4 so:
I am still on 3.3.2 because nobody has yet packaged 3.4 for CentOS 5.x, from
what I can tell. I have the package from the rpmforge-extras repo, and 3.3.2
is still the most current version there (and on Atomic and AtRP
On 02/20/2014 06:22 PM, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Axb wrote:
What kind of traffic are you dealing with? personal, corporate?
ISPish? How many domains/users/msgs/day?
This is mostly personal email with a little bit of corporate. In
this instance, it is for a single doma
On 2/20/14 11:23 AM, "John Hardin" wrote:
>BAYES_99 is being reverted to its original definition and BAYES_999 is
>being converted to an overlapping additive rule that adds some more points
>to BAYES_99 for the very top end of Bayes score.
>This should go out within the next couple of rule upd
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Dave Pooser wrote:
BAYES_99 used to hit for emails that the naive Bayesian
classifier identified as 99% to 100% spam.
BAYES_99 is now split into two rules to give it finer gradient on scores
for different percentages:
BAYES_99 99% to 99.9%
BAYES_999 99.9% to 100%
It woul
On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Axb wrote:
> What kind of traffic are you dealing with? personal, corporate? ISPish?
> How many domains/users/msgs/day?
This is mostly personal email with a little bit of corporate. In this
instance, it is for a single domain with 3 users and approximately 50-100
On 02/20/2014 06:06 PM, Amir Caspi wrote:
Hi all,
Following some off-list discussions with Kevin, John, et al., I had a
question that was suggested I bring up on-list, so here it is:
For whatever reason, many of the FNs I've been getting lately are
passing because they hit BAY
Hi all,
Following some off-list discussions with Kevin, John, et al., I had a
question that was suggested I bring up on-list, so here it is:
For whatever reason, many of the FNs I've been getting lately are
passing because they hit BAYES_00, even though they are matching
AC_SPA
Kevin A. McGrail wrote on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:06:59 -0500:
> 3.2.0 hasn't had updates since at least Jan of 2010 from looking
I thought there may not have been any updates since then. Time to do
upgrades :-)
But the eval rule nevertheless works if you add it manually.
Thanks for all your hard w
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:32 +0200, Nick I wrote:
> The problems we have are:
> 1) very rare spamassassin do not make any test at custom check_rbl
> for IP which exist it rbldnsd
>
Do the unchecked message exceed the maximum message size?
Default is 512Kb. If the unchecked messages are bigger, rais
Lennart Johansson wrote on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:58:21 +0100:
> Which SA versions do get this new 999 rule? e.g. I have also older
> installations with 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 that would need careful updating.
Just adding your rule seems to add 999 to the set of older setups as well,
although it wasn't d
On 2/20/2014 6:32 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Kevin A. McGrail wrote on Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:18:12 -0500:
body BAYES_99 eval:check_bayes('0.99', '0.999')
body BAYES_999 eval:check_bayes('0.999', '1.00')
score BAYES_99 0 0 3.83.5
score BAYES_999 0 0 4.03.7
I've also j
On 2/20/2014 7:32 AM, Nick I wrote:
Hello,
We use internal rbldnsd 0.996b, postfix-2.11, amavisd-new-2.8.0-4.el6,
SpamAssassin version 3.3.1running on Perl version 5.10.1, CentOS 6.5.
On the same server used bind9 as cache DNS server
3.3.1 was release almost 4 years ago. Please consider 3.4.0
fixar det
/Lelle
>>> Kai Schaetzl 14-02-20 12:33 >>>
Kevin A. McGrail wrote on Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:18:12 -0500:
> body BAYES_99 eval:check_bayes('0.99', '0.999')
> body BAYES_999 eval:check_bayes('0.999', '1.00')
> score BAYES_99 0 0 3.83.5
> score BAYES_999 0 0 4
Hello,
We use internal rbldnsd 0.996b, postfix-2.11, amavisd-new-2.8.0-4.el6,
SpamAssassin version 3.3.1running on Perl version 5.10.1, CentOS 6.5.
On the same server used bind9 as cache DNS server
Example of spamassassin rbl check.
header __RCVD_IN_DNSWL eval:check_rbl('rep-domai
Kevin A. McGrail wrote on Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:18:12 -0500:
> body BAYES_99 eval:check_bayes('0.99', '0.999')
> body BAYES_999 eval:check_bayes('0.999', '1.00')
> score BAYES_99 0 0 3.83.5
> score BAYES_999 0 0 4.03.7
I've also just recognized the presence of BAYES_
Hi,
I use debian squeeze with SpamAssassin version 3.3.1. From one to
the other day spamd stopped working. I do a reinstall of the
packages for spamassassin and also removed all config files, with no
luck.
After reinstall I got this, if I try to start spamd
spamd --debug
---cut
Feb 20 11:30:25
psychobyte,
I'm trying to do some filtering on the originating IP address of a
message using a custom plugin on SA-3.3.2-r1
I have this variable set in my .cf file(same as trusted networks var):
awl_ignore_networks143.31/16 69.21/16 10.0.1/24
I've declared my awl_ignore_networks like so:
66 matches
Mail list logo
