On 01/04/2018 11:20 AM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:40:49 -0600
David Jones wrote:
On 01/04/2018 10:04 AM, RW wrote:
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
My production MailScanner instance has a highly tuned MTA in front of
it so SA doesn't see as much spam. The amavis instance is
intentionally open to more spam to collect for the nightly masscheck
processing.
That's not obviously relevant since I was referring to the
frequency of mails missing BAYES_99 within emails hitting BAYES_999.
... rules: meta test FOO has dependency 'BAYES_999' with a zero
score
If I had BAYES_99 set to a zero score, it would never show up in my
logs.
As I said, they are bogus warnings. I think it's a known issue.
I have BAYES_999 scored and I get 3 such matches per spamd restart
using your grep patterns. Your 4 seem highly suspicious.
Until you manually check those 4, or retry with better grep patterns,
you don't really know what's happening.
I understand what you are saying now. I will track down those 4 and
report back.
--
David Jones
