On Saturday 21 January 2006 18:40, jdow wrote:
>From: "Spam Ass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>On 1/21/06, Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So does SA mark EVERY email with the:
>> X-Spam-Status: Yes/No header?
>
>The only time I have run into an email not being tagged is when the
> email was over a certain size. I believe the default max size is
> 256kb. This can be changed on a per user or global basis though.
>
>Ian
>
><<jdow>> There are certain settings for SpamAssassin which can cause
>this, unfortunately. The prevailing wisdom is that it's a perl bug
>that hits randomly. If you see this bug you will see both ham and spam
>that failed to acquire a markup.
>
>The triggering method is to allow per user rules in addition to
> scores. Then have a rawbody rule. (There are two or three other types
> which lead to the "evalstr" error.) What you will find is that there
> is an PerMsgStatus.pm error logged and no SpamAssassin markup at all
> on the message. It also seems to be dependant on a small timing
> window with two concurrent scans.
>
>I use procmail. So I can run SpamAssassin, look to see that the markup
>is present or not, and if it is not present run it through again. I've
>never seen the bug hit twice in a row. As it happens the normal scan
>takes place with spamc. If that fails I use spamassassin raw.
>
>{^_^}
An interesting thought just came to mind, Joanne. Could one check for
the header added, and if not present, just repeat the scan by pipeing
it thru spamc again? What you say would tend to show that lightning
doesn't strike twice. I know better, and so do you, but this isn't
lightning were discussing here. :)
--
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
