Tom Caudron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Daniel said, "'more' is definitively the wrong way to run this as it > adds paging lines, etc. It's also not needed. Just run: "spamc < > message" > > I get the same results.
Well, I'd have guessed that you would have the same results as it just adds garbage lines, but not at the beginning, but it's still really wrong. :-) > [...] >> spamassassin -tD < <message_name> One minor note: "spamasassin" does not use spamd. To use spamd, you need to run "spamc". > The results are correct (ie it tests the message and gives me sane > output that matches my expectations). So it seems SA is working. Spamd > is running and Spamc calls Spamd, but somewhere in the mix, the results > get hosed when the message actually is spam. Weird. "get hosed"? I suggest you work on the descriptiveness there: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html Also, the wiki I mentioned has an explicit section on how to test SpamAssassin. > Any ideas what I could try next? I am at a loss. Read the wiki. Try testing the "sample-spam.txt" file that comes with SA. If it's not marked as spam, then it's 99% likely installed wrong. If your "spam" is not _really_ spam (READ THE WIKI), then well, argh! Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
