On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 08:02:48 -0600 David Jones wrote: > On 01/04/2018 04:46 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >> On 2 Jan 2018, at 07:17, David Jones djo...@ena.com> wrote: > >>> I haven't redefined these rules from what I can tell by searching > >>> my local rules. I would think that if I had done this, then > >>> there would be consistent non-hits of BAYES_99 with BAYES_999 all > >>> of the time. This is only happening a small percentage of the > >>> time. > > > > On 02.01.18 15:39, @lbutlr wrote: > >> Checking my mail I see an incidence rate of this of about 0.5%, > >> which matches the rate you posted earlier. > > > > amavis? > > > > I am seeing this problem on my MailScanner filters as well: > > # grep BAYES_999 maillog-20171231 | wc -l > 9172 > # grep BAYES_999 maillog-20171231 | grep -v "BAYES_99 " | wc -l > 4
Are you sure that's right? It's a radically different frequency from 0.5% and 0.8%. IIWY I'd look at the 4 and check they are what you think they are and not something like ... rules: meta test FOO has dependency 'BAYES_999' with a zero score I get some bogus warnings like this. You need something to make sure it's a result line and some boundary checks like \bBAYES_99\b might help too. I can't reproduce the problem using spamc/spamd from 3.4.1 with perl 5.24.3 on FreeBSD 11.1 with Berkeley DB. I don't have any missing BAYES_99 hits in my corpus headers and to check it's not a recent bug I rescanned ~5k spams and checked the logs.
