From: Nick Gilbert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Right. I restarted the box (just in case) and it's now behaving
> slightly differently for some reason (no idea why - I've already
> restarted the spamd service several times this evening):
>
> spamc -u nick < spam3.txt now gives:
>
> * 3.5 BA
Right. I restarted the box (just in case) and it's now behaving slightly
differently for some reason (no idea why - I've already restarted the
spamd service several times this evening):
spamc -u nick < spam3.txt now gives:
* 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
...whi
What parameters is spamd
started with? In particular, is spamd started with -u? If so, spamc's -u will be
ignored.
I was - yes. But removing it and restarting spamd, and then rerunning
the test doesn't seem to make any difference. It still isn't applying
the bayes scores to that message even w
Nick Gilbert wrote:
So perhaps the source of the problem is not simscan after all? Why
would spamassassin and spamc produce different results?
I never said the problem was with SimScan.
No *I* did :)
Matt Kettler asked the relevant question. Are you logged in as Nick
when you are test
So perhaps the source of the problem is not simscan after all? Why
would spamassassin and spamc produce different results?
I never said the problem was with SimScan.
No *I* did :)
Matt Kettler asked the relevant question. Are you logged in as Nick
when you are testing spamassassin?
Yep
Are you running spamassassin while logged in as "nick"?
Yes... But I presumed that the "-u nick" was designed to simulate that?
Well that works with spamc, but not for spamassassin. ie:
if you did that all while logged in as root, spamc would be using nick's bayes
DB, but spamassassin woul
Matt Kettler wrote:
>spamc -u nick < spam3.txt
Actually, one more question that comes to mind.. what parameters is spamd
started with? In particular, is spamd started with -u? If so, spamc's -u will be
ignored.
Nick Gilbert wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> Nick Gilbert wrote:
>>
>>> I've just noticed that if I run:
>>>
>>> spamc -u [EMAIL PROTECTED] < spam3.txt
>>> or
>>> spamc -u nick < spam3.txt
>>>
>>> I do NOT get the bayes results which I DO get if I run:
>>>
>>> spamassassin -t < spam3.txt.
>>>
>
From: Nick Gilbert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I've just noticed that if I run:
>
> spamc -u [EMAIL PROTECTED] < spam3.txt
>or
> spamc -u nick < spam3.txt
>
> I do NOT get the bayes results which I DO get if I run:
>
> spamassassin -t < spam3.txt.
>
> So perhaps the source of the problem
Matt Kettler wrote:
Nick Gilbert wrote:
I've just noticed that if I run:
spamc -u [EMAIL PROTECTED] < spam3.txt
or
spamc -u nick < spam3.txt
I do NOT get the bayes results which I DO get if I run:
spamassassin -t < spam3.txt.
So perhaps the source of the problem is not simscan after all? W
Nick Gilbert wrote:
> I've just noticed that if I run:
>
> spamc -u [EMAIL PROTECTED] < spam3.txt
> or
> spamc -u nick < spam3.txt
>
> I do NOT get the bayes results which I DO get if I run:
>
> spamassassin -t < spam3.txt.
>
> So perhaps the source of the problem is not simscan after all? Wh
I've just noticed that if I run:
spamc -u [EMAIL PROTECTED] < spam3.txt
or
spamc -u nick < spam3.txt
I do NOT get the bayes results which I DO get if I run:
spamassassin -t < spam3.txt.
So perhaps the source of the problem is not simscan after all? Why would
spamassassin and spamc produce d
From: Nick Gilbert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > You are training bayes and running your manual tests as the user
> > 'nick'. However, when a real message is scanned, it is probably
> > running as a different user and using a different (untrained) bayes
> > database. What
From: Nick Gilbert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> For some reason, spamassassin is behaving differently when it scans
> real incoming mail compared to when I run it manually with the -t
> option from the console.
>
> When a real message is scanned, it doesn't seem to apply any
> bayesian scoring t
14 matches
Mail list logo
