Don Levey wrote: > Don Levey wrote: >> Jim Maul wrote: >>> >>> Failed means it didnt work for some reason. No means it simply >>> didnt even try to autolearn (score wasnt high enough, spam/ham >>> threshold not reached, etc.) In short, failed points to a >>> potential problem, whereas no doesnt. >>> >>> -Jim >> >> That I understood; I'm mentioning the "no" because that means the >> autolearn is functioning in at least some cases. The only >> differences I'm seeing between the failure and functioning cases are >> the actual spam scores. Those with "autolearn=no" seem to score at >> least -3.7 or higher, while the "autolearn=failed" show up as -4.8 or >> -4.9. -Don > > Whoops, spoke too soon. I see an "autolearn=no" with -4.8, and > "autolearn=failed" with -2.1, so it's not a problem with a certain > score cutoff, or (from what I can tell) specific rules hits. I'm > checking logs again... > > Thanks! > -Don
I think I may have it, though it's a little too soon to tell. The permissions on the Bayes DB files were just fine, and owned by the SA ID. The permissions on the directory housing those files were OK - but the owner was not. I feel a bit stupid for not having checked this when I looked at the rest, but it seems to be working now. -Don
