Don Levey wrote:
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
Well im glad its working now. Sometimes all you need to solve the
problem is to tell someone else about it. Gets you thinking differently...
-Jim
