ay, December 23, 2005 3:08 PM
To: John Urness
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bayes Scores Skipped/Not Applied
John Urness wrote:
>
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
> score ALL_TRUSTED 0 0 0 0
That is very concerning. Why'd you do that? 99.9% of the time t
ttler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 3:08 PM
To: John Urness
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bayes Scores Skipped/Not Applied
John Urness wrote:
>
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
> score ALL_TRUSTED 0 0 0 0
That is very concerning. Why
Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 3:08 PM
To: John Urness
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bayes Scores Skipped/Not Applied
John Urness wrote:
>
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
> score ALL_TRUSTED 0 0 0 0
That is very concerning. Why
database that was recreated and not an
issue of multiple databases
John
-Original Message-
From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 4:43 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bayes Scores Skipped/Not Applied
This seems strange:
> H
This seems strange:
> Here is sa-learn --dump magic:
> This shows that I have more than enough spam and ham
> 0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
> 0.000 0 3754 0 non-token data: nspam
> 0.000 0220 0 non-
John Urness wrote:
>
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
> score ALL_TRUSTED 0 0 0 0
That is very concerning. Why'd you do that? 99.9% of the time the proper fix is
to declare a trusted_networks. Disabling this rule merely covers up one symptom
of a very pervasive problem (errant trust).
>
>
Hi,
I recently upgraded from spamassassin 3.0 to 3.1 and right away the amount
of false negatives increased. I thought at first that it was because of the
loss of dcc and razor (which surely is a factor), but on further
investigation it appears that it is more related to the Bayes system.
I have l
