.
The date is Jan 30, 2020. I'm running SA 3.4.4 (the version supplied by
backports on my debian machine).
Then sa-update is not running. Those scores are more than a year old. Fix
that first.
...which you did. Ah, the hazards of answering as you read...
The installs might be giving diff
ng SA 3.4.4 (the version supplied by
backports on my debian machine).
Then sa-update is not running. Those scores are more than a year old. Fix
that first.
The installs might be giving different scores for the same rule due to
configuration differences - for example, one might have Bayes en
On 2021-04-25 10:19 AM, RW wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 00:40:59 -0400
Steve Dondley wrote:
On both machines, /usr/share/spasmassassin/72_active.cf has this rule
which is commented out:
This is the legacy rule directory from before sa-update existed.
Have you not got another directory popu
On 2021-04-25 05:57 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.04.21 um 07:09 schrieb Steve Dondley:
That rule has this line in the 72_active.cf file:
Look in 72_scores.cf and compare the modification dates on that file.
Their scores as of today (saturday):
72_scores.cf:score FSL_BULK_SIG
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 00:40:59 -0400
Steve Dondley wrote:
>
> On both machines, /usr/share/spasmassassin/72_active.cf has this rule
> which is commented out:
>
This is the legacy rule directory from before sa-update existed.
Have you not got another directory populated by sa-update?
On 2021-04-25 01:00 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021, Steve Dondley wrote:
I'm running the same version of SA on the same email on two different
machines and getting different scores in for some rules in the report:
Machine A gives: 0.0 FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature wi
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021, Steve Dondley wrote:
I'm running the same version of SA on the same email on two different
machines and getting different scores in for some rules in the report:
Machine A gives: 0.0 FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature with no Unsubscribe
Machine B gives
I'm running the same version of SA on the same email on two different
machines and getting different scores in for some rules in the report:
Machine A gives: 0.0 FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature with no
Unsubscribe
Machine B gives: 1.0 FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature wi
On 26-Mar-2009, at 20:01, cnone wrote:
Thank you. Here is a sample spam email
http://pastebin.com/m7f0d60b1
Please don't top-post.
That scores only 1.8 for me, and the IP is not in zen...
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on
mail.covisp.net
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Sta
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 19:26 -0700, asimsinan wrote:
> Sorry forgot to add the headers. That is strange.
> mine only has
>2.1 SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject is all capitals
> * 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable
> relay lines
> * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: H
gt; language
>
>
> --
> char
> *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
> main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i c<<=1:
> (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 19:01 -0700, confusingly, a different anonymous
Nabble user wrote:
> Thank you. Here is a sample spam email
>
> http://pastebin.com/m7f0d60b1
That does not show your SA headers. Anyway, here's mine. Enjoy.
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06
,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i c<<=1:
> (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0;
> }}}
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Spamc-giving-different-scores-tp22734449p22734830.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 18:43 -0700, the same anonymous Nabble user wrote:
> But the problem is I know that the email is absolutely spam. It should
> identify it as spam. And for some spam emails, it gives low scores like 1.8,
> 0.3. Should I accept them as false negatives?
Now this is an entirely d
But the problem is I know that the email is absolutely spam. It should
identify it as spam. And for some spam emails, it gives low scores like 1.8,
0.3. Should I accept them as false negatives?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Spamc-giving-different-scores
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 18:15 -0700, an anonymous Nabble user wrote:
> I ran spamc a couple of times. It sometimes gives different scores for same
> email. Sometimes it gives higher than 5,sometime lower. What can be wrong?
Can't tell, unless you provide the SA headers for the first a
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:15:01 -0700 (PDT), asimsinan
wrote:
>
> I ran spamc a couple of times. It sometimes gives different scores for
> same
> email. Sometimes it gives higher than 5,sometime lower. What can be
wrong?
> --
> View this message in context:
>
http://www.na
I ran spamc a couple of times. It sometimes gives different scores for same
email. Sometimes it gives higher than 5,sometime lower. What can be wrong?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Spamc-giving-different-scores-tp22734449p22734449.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users
; * [URIs: opaqbay.com]
> * 2.9 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL
> blocklist
> * [URIs: opaqbay.com]
since URIBL_JP_SURBL and URIBL_RHS_DOB have different scores in those cases,
it's clear that you run with different settings.
% grep URIBL_JP_
PileOfMush wrote:
> No, I ran the spamassassin -d -t test as root.
Well, if you use spamd, that's definitely not the right user. Spamd will
never scan as root.
> I'm not sure which user to
> run as. I'm using qmail on plesk. I have about 6 different users with
> the name "qmail" in them, plus
B strongly thinks the
> message is not spam (less than 1% probability it is spam..).
>
> You might want to review your bayes training.
>
> See also: man sa-learn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Different-Scores-tp19403311p19416161.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
PileOfMush wrote:
> Can someone help me understand why a message can come through and get
> one score, then I can scan it again 1 minute later and get a much
> higher score? Here's the message. http://slexy.org/raw/s2JoVC8OlP The
> top copy of the message was how it was scanned coming in. Immediate
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, PileOfMush wrote:
Can someone help me understand why a message can come through and get one
score, then I can scan it again 1 minute later and get a
much higher score? Here's the message. http://slexy.org/raw/s2JoVC8OlP The top
copy of the message was how it was scanned com
On 28.07.08 14:44, maillist wrote:
>I am getting a lot of spam. I did some investigating, and it looks
> like I have something set up incorrectly. If I get a spam message, and
> run it through "spamassassin -t", then it shows that it should be spam,
> but during the process when the mail a
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 19:15 -0500, maillist wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> >
> > RBL hits. They most likely have been updated since the original scan.
> > Since you get this result with a subsequent spamc run, too, we pretty
> > much can rule out permanent DNS failures or local tests option.
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
RBL hits. They most likely have been updated since the original scan.
Since you get this result with a subsequent spamc run, too, we pretty
much can rule out permanent DNS failures or local tests option. Still, a
(potentially local) temporary DNS issue might explain it
> The test score for that message was 6.269 ( 7 is required ) and the
^
> tests that it hit were:
> BAYES_80,DATE_IN_PAST_06_12,HS_BOBAX_MID_2,RDNS_NONE
> ...however, when I manually run it through either spamc -c < 7.txt or
> spamassass
> Another responded with a request for more info. I posted one small
> message here...
That would have been me. ;)
> http://emailacs.com/temp/J872209005Tq/7.txt
>
> The test score for that message was 6.269 ( 7 is required ) and the
> tests that it hit were:
> BAYES_80,DATE_IN_PAST_06_12,HS_
Bowie Bailey wrote:
maillist wrote:
Hi guys,
slackware 11.0
spamassassin version 3.2.5
running on Perl version 5.8.8
mimedefang version 2.64
sendmail 8.14
I am getting a lot of spam. I did some investigating, and it
looks like I have something set up incorrectly. If I get a spam
mes
etect the spam at the later point. All of these will result in
different scores, and often in different rules firing.
guenther
--
char *t="[EMAIL PROTECTED]";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
maillist wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> slackware 11.0
> spamassassin version 3.2.5
> running on Perl version 5.8.8
> mimedefang version 2.64
> sendmail 8.14
>
> I am getting a lot of spam. I did some investigating, and it
> looks like I have something set up incorrectly. If I get a spam
> message
Hi guys,
slackware 11.0
spamassassin version 3.2.5
running on Perl version 5.8.8
mimedefang version 2.64
sendmail 8.14
I am getting a lot of spam. I did some investigating, and it looks
like I have something set up incorrectly. If I get a spam message, and
run it through "spamassassin -t
On 26.02.08 11:56, Russell Jones wrote:
> For some reason spamd is not scoring email nearly as high as
> spamassassin scores if you run the message through manually. I do not
> understand this, and it is causing spam to get through that should have
> been blocked. As you can see when running spa
For some reason spamd is not scoring email nearly as high as
spamassassin scores if you run the message through manually. I do not
understand this, and it is causing spam to get through that should have
been blocked. As you can see when running spamassassin manually it
scored it a 7.5, but spam
Joeri Belis wrote:
> setup :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ spamc -V
> SpamAssassin Client version 3.1.7
> compiled with SSL support (OpenSSL 0.9.8c 05 Sep 2006)
>
> i get totaly different scores when i run spamc from the commandline as
> vpopmail user as when i run i from proc
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 05:02:28PM +0200, Joeri Belis wrote:
> run from cmd line as vpopmail user
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.2 required=3.4 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,ADVANCE_FEE_2,
>BAYES_00,MISSING_HB_SEP,MISSING_SUBJECT,NO_RECEIVED,NO_RELAYS,
>TO_CC_NONE autolearn=no version=3.1.7
Ev
setup :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ spamc -V
SpamAssassin Client version 3.1.7
compiled with SSL support (OpenSSL 0.9.8c 05 Sep 2006)
i get totaly different scores when i run spamc from the commandline as
vpopmail user as when i run i from procmail also as vpopmail user.
Here are some outputs
run
Kelsey Forsythe wrote:
> I am running SpamAssassin version 3.0.1 running on Perl version 5.8.6
> on an Xserve G5.
> When I try to test the spamassassin execution using 'spamassassin -tD
> < [test message]'
> I receive the following:
>
> I type 'spamassassin -tD < 16146.'
> and a bunch of debug resu
I am running SpamAssassin version 3.0.1 running on Perl version 5.8.6
on an Xserve G5.
When I try to test the spamassassin execution using 'spamassassin -tD
< [test message]'
I receive the following:
I type 'spamassassin -tD < 16146.'
and a bunch of debug results plus the end which looks like
Thanks to everyone for their help...
Charles pointed me in the right direction, I had 2 copies of
spamassassin. But just removing one didn't do the trick. Recompiled
from source after that, and I think it's good to go.
So far spam has been scored above 5, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Evan Platt wrote:
> At 12:58 PM 10/9/2006, you wrote:
>
> > Network tests are definitely missing. There are two ways to turn
> > off network tests. The first is with the '-L' option to spamd. The
> > second is with config options in local.cf. Using the config options
> > should affect both spa
From: "Evan Platt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 04:07 PM 10/9/2006, you wrote:
What the are you running spamd from cron for? It is
usually started from your init sequence and runs as a daemon.
I changed that earlier. My mac seems to be ignoring the /Library/StartupItems.
"spamd -d -c -m3 -Hi --
At 04:07 PM 10/9/2006, you wrote:
What the are you running spamd from cron for? It is
usually started from your init sequence and runs as a daemon.
I changed that earlier. My mac seems to be ignoring the /Library/StartupItems.
"spamd -d -c -m3 -Hi --max-conn-per-child=15" is the usual sort
From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Evan Platt wrote:
At 01:37 PM 10/6/2006, you wrote:
> > > :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> > > |spamd -L -c -s 512000
>
> This should be:
>
> spamc -c -s 512000
>
> > Now it appears spamassassin isn't checking mail at all, as the
> > mail isn't marked up
At 12:58 PM 10/9/2006, you wrote:
Network tests are definitely missing. There are two ways to turn off
network tests. The first is with the '-L' option to spamd. The
second is with config options in local.cf. Using the config options
should affect both spamd and spamassassin, so based on the
Evan Platt wrote:
> At 11:30 AM 10/9/2006, you wrote:
>
> > spamc is a small executable that hands off the message to spamd for
> > processing.
>
> Ahh ok.
>
>
> > You can run it from the command line the same way you do with
> > spamassassin.
> >
> > spamc < inputfile > outputfile
> >
>
At 11:30 AM 10/9/2006, you wrote:
spamc is a small executable that hands off the message to spamd for
processing.
Ahh ok.
You can run it from the command line the same way you do with
spamassassin.
spamc < inputfile > outputfile
You also might want to check the process that is running
Evan Platt wrote:
> > From: Bowie Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > I'm not familiar with the procmail syntax. When you do
> > > "|program", what is the expected output of the command? If it
> > > expects to get the filtered email back from the program, you will
> > > need to leave off the
From: Bowie Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: 2 different scores?
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:13:11 -0400
I'm not familiar with the procmail syntax. When you do "|program",
what is the expected output of the command? If it expect
Evan Platt wrote:
> At 01:37 PM 10/6/2006, you wrote:
> > > > :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> > > > |spamd -L -c -s 512000
> >
> > This should be:
> >
> > spamc -c -s 512000
> >
> > > Now it appears spamassassin isn't checking mail at all, as the
> > > mail isn't marked up at all.
> > >
> > > My
To:
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 10:22 PM
Subject: RE: 2 different scores?
At 01:37 PM 10/6/2006, you wrote:
> > 0fw: spamassassin.lock
> > spamd -L -c -s 512000
This should be:
spamc -c -s 512000
> Now it appears spamassassin isn't checking mail at all, as the ma
At 01:37 PM 10/6/2006, you wrote:
> > 0fw: spamassassin.lock
> > spamd -L -c -s 512000
This should be:
spamc -c -s 512000
> Now it appears spamassassin isn't checking mail at all, as the mail
> isn't marked up at all.
>
> My cron entry upon bootup is:
>
> /opt/local/bin/spamd -L
Get rid o
Evan Platt wrote:
> From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > The first case obviously isn't using network tests. -L on spamd
> > startup? Permissions problem? Different usercode than what you ran
> > the test under? Different home directory?
> >
> > I'd make a guess at the -L parameter
> From: Evan Platt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
> I changed my procmailrc to;
>
> :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> | spamd -L -c -s 512000
Shouldn't that be spamc?
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Subject: Re: 2 different scores?
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 01:11:50 -0700
The first case obviously isn't using network tests. -L on spamd
startup? Permissions problem? Different usercode than what you ran
the test under? Dif
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.4 required=5.0
tests=HELO_DYNAMIC_HOME_NL,INFO_TLD,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no version=3.1.6
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=20.2 required=5.0 tests=HELO_DYNAMIC_HOME_NL,
INFO_TLD,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RCVD_IN_WHOIS_BOGONS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,
URIBL_AB_SURBL,U
Ok, I've googled this, and perhaps I'm not searching with the right
words or my search is too vague..
Running spamassassin on a os/x box,
SA is called from my procmail:
:0fw: spamassassin.lock
| spamc -s 512000
(Perhaps I have more than one spamc and I'm calling the wrong one?)
Just received
Mike Pepe wrote:
>
>> We need some background on your setup:
>>
>> How do you call SA to get your mail scanned at delivery time?
>> Do you use spamd to scan your mail?
>> If so, did you restart spamd after adding your rule?
>> Where is your CATHY_CAPARULA rule declared (ie: what file)?
>
> Hi Mat
We need some background on your setup:
How do you call SA to get your mail scanned at delivery time?
Do you use spamd to scan your mail?
If so, did you restart spamd after adding your rule?
Where is your CATHY_CAPARULA rule declared (ie: what file)?
Hi Matt,
The system is FC3, running SA 3.1
4.221 listed in
> sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org]
> -2.9 AWLAWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
>
> The second spam is almost identical to the first.
>
> I guess the question is: why such radically different scores? is the
> auto-scanning not using my cust
AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
The second spam is almost identical to the first.
I guess the question is: why such radically different scores? is the
auto-scanning not using my custom CATHY_CAPARULA rule?
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_40_50,
> HTML_LINK_PUSH_HERE,HTML_MESSAGE,UNWANTED_LANGUAGE_BODY autolearn=no
> version=3.1.0
>
>
> You see: UNWANTED_LANGUAGE_BODY rule applies to this message, but does
> not give the desired score, otherwise the score would
Gerhard Hofmann wrote:
Hi all,
we are a German company and 99 per cent of our daily email communication
is in German language. There is only a very small amount of legitimate
English email coming from some well known sources (mailing lists like
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and so on),
Hi all,
we are a German company and 99 per cent of our daily email communication
is in German language. There is only a very small amount of legitimate
English email coming from some well known sources (mailing lists like
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and so on), any other non-German em
Yeah this was my problems, Thanks.
El mar, 06-09-2005 a las 12:00 -0400, Matt Kettler escribió:
> Andy Jezierski wrote:
> >
> >
> > Are you running the spamassassin command under the same userid as spamd
> > is running under? Looks like spamd is using bayes that spamassassin did
> > not have, an
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>>
>> Definitely not.
>>
>> Look at the prompts. Miguel is running spamassassin as root.
>>
>> Miguel is running spamc as root, but spamd will *NEVER* scan mail as
>> root. It
>> will setuid itself to nobody if it finds this situation.
>
>
> At least, not on a rec
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Matt Kettler wrote:
Andy Jezierski wrote:
Are you running the spamassassin command under the same userid as spamd
is running under? Looks like spamd is using bayes that spamassassin did
not have, and spamassassin had a negative AWL score that spamd didn't
have.
Definite
Andy Jezierski wrote:
>
>
> Are you running the spamassassin command under the same userid as spamd
> is running under? Looks like spamd is using bayes that spamassassin did
> not have, and spamassassin had a negative AWL score that spamd didn't
> have.
Definitely not.
Look at the prompts. M
procmail -t -m -p ./skuda/procmailrc
I know that i would be launching spamc and not spamassassin perl script
but i get different scores from the 2 programs.
I have this in my .qmail file
| /usr/bin/procmail ~/.procmailrc
and then in .procmailrc I first sort out all my mailing lists by
match
to do it.
> | spamassassin | preline procmail -t -m -p ./skuda/procmailrc
>
> I know that i would be launching spamc and not spamassassin perl script
> but i get different scores from the 2 programs.
>
Are you running the spamassassin command under the
same userid as spamd is r
quot;""
The problem that i have is that i only want to launch spamassassin in my
account so i am using my .qmail-file to do it.
| spamassassin | preline procmail -t -m -p ./skuda/procmailrc
I know that i would be launching spamc and not spamassassin perl script
but i get different scor
Greg Earle wrote on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:24:44 -0700:
> Why do I only get one SPAMCOP_URI_RBL_* hit when it's fed to "spamd"
> as it comes in, yet I get 5 of them when I run it manually?
Your spamd either uses different rules or gets a different message (from
whatever feeds the message to it).
Greg Earle wrote:
> (I'm still using 2.63 on my production mail server, btw. Please don't
> shoot
> me.)
I'll avoid shooting you, but I will warn you that you have a DoS vulnerability.
2.64 and higher are immune to this particular DoS.
3.0.1-3.0.3 are also subject to a separate DoS that's fixe
Greg Earle wrote:
> it finds
> "Display:" and "none" just fine when it's in the body as Plain Text
> ... so why doesn't it find them when they're inside HTML?)
"body" rules don't look at HTML tags, they look at an html-to-text'ified
version.
You can look at the raw HTML by using "rawbody" r
I keep getting these Via*/Cial*/Val* "and many other" SPAMs (you know
the ones,
they start with "Hello, Welcome to " and have all
those
obfuscating "DISPLAY:" "none"s embedded in them).
(I'm still using 2.63 on my production mail server, btw. Please don't
shoot
me.)
What I don't understand
From: "Thomas Arend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Dienstag, 28. Dezember 2004 15:34 schrieb jdow:
> From: "Thomas Arend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 22:01 schrieb jdow:
> > From: "
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Dienstag, 28. Dezember 2004 15:34 schrieb jdow:
> From: "Thomas Arend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 22:01 schrieb jdow:
> > From: "Morris Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
From: "Thomas Arend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 22:01 schrieb jdow:
> From: "Morris Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Kevin Curran wrote:
> > > Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on
> > > whether spamass
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 22:01 schrieb jdow:
> From: "Morris Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Kevin Curran wrote:
> > > Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on
> > > whether spamassassin or spamc is called.
> > >
> > > What
From: "Morris Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Kevin Curran wrote:
> > Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on whether
> > spamassassin or spamc is called.
> >
> > What's up with that?
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> You probably need to stop spamd and restart it so it rereads the .cf
fil
Kevin Curran wrote:
Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on whether
spamassassin or spamc is called.
What's up with that?
Thanks!
You probably need to stop spamd and restart it so it rereads the .cf files.
Cheers,
Mojo
--
Morris Jones
Monrovia, CA
http://www.whiteoaks.com
O
o
> ignore local.cf.
1. Which Version do you use?
2 Can you send an example which shows the difference you mean.
3. How do you start spamd? There are options which enable or disable some
tests. So it's not unusal to get different scores.
> Tests show that an email will get a different
|-Original Message-
|From: Kevin Curran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: 27 December 2004 07:09
|To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
|Subject: spamc/spamassassin = different scores
|
|Hello list,
|
|I don't know about you all, but I've been getting a lot of
|false negatives t
Hello list,
I don't know about you all, but I've been getting a lot of false negatives
that have a hit on the ALL_TRUSTED test. So, I disabled that test in
local.cf. Now, I'm running SA on FreeBSD using sendmail and procmail.
When the user's .procmailrc calls spamassassin it seems to honor local
Chad -
I only just glanced at your message, but I think you must be looking at
2 different messages, OR your spamd start is manually setting a config
that is different than the default set picked up by spamassassin, which
doesn't pick up on that. It's likely if you start spamd without the
extr
K,HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RATWARE
_ZERO_TZ
I'm at a complete loss as to why the different scores? Is there
something I've done wrong here?
First a comment: You seem to have a major problem with your
trusted_networks setting. ALL_TRUSTED should not fire for spam. If yo
On Thursday 11 November 2004 04:23 am, Chad M Stewart wrote:
> Something else is going wrong with my Bayes db learning as well. I
> restarted spamd this morning. By restart I mean I found the running
> process ID, sent it a kill -TERM and then started it again using the
> above string. Bef
19025]: debug:
subtests=__0_TZ_3,__CT,__CTE,__CTYPE_CHARSET_QUOTED,__CTYPE_HTML,__HAS_M
SGID,__HAS_SUBJECT,__HAS_X_MAILER,__MIME_HTML,__MIME_VERSION,__MSGID_OK_
DIGITS,__RATWARE_0_TZ_DATE,__SANE_MSGID,__UNUSABLE_MSGID
Nov 11 06:39:51 bia spamd[19025]: logmsg: clean message (2.2/3.2) for
(unknow
88 matches
Mail list logo
