I have SA3.1 installed on my fedora machine and 3.1 (built from fedora SRPM) 
on a RedHat Enterprise Linux 4 box . The fedora machine identifies a message 
as spam, but the redhat one lets it through. The only difference in the 
configs is basically, the redhat machine use MySQL for prefs where the fedora 
one does not.

Here are the checks that run on the FC5 machine:

[11431] dbg: check: 
tests=AWL,DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RCVD_IN_WHOIS_INVALID
[11431] dbg: check: 
subtests=__CD,__CT,__CTE,__CT_TEXT_PLAIN,__ENV_AND_HDR_FROM_MATCH,__FRAUD_DBI,__HAS_MSGID,__HAS_RCVD,__HAS_SUBJECT,__MIME_QP,__MIME_VERSION,__MSGID_OK_HOST,__NONEMPTY_BODY,__RCVD_IN_NJABL,__RCVD_IN_SORBS,__RCVD_IN_WHOIS,__RFC_IGNORANT_ENVFROM,__SANE_MSGID,__TOCC_EXISTS
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 14 21:47:15 2006
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on
        beowulf
X-Spam-Level: ********
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=8.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,
        DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,
        RCVD_IN_WHOIS_INVALID autolearn=no version=3.1.3


And here is the same message run on SA on the redhat machine:

[29351] dbg: check: is spam? score=2.007 required=3
[29351] dbg: check: tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06
[29351] dbg: check: 
subtests=__CD,__CT,__CTE,__CT_TEXT_PLAIN,__ENV_AND_HDR_FROM_MATCH,__FRAUD_DBI,__HAS_MSGID,__HAS_RCVD,__HAS_SUBJECT,__MIME_QP,__MIME_VERSION,__MSGID_OK_HOST,__NONEMPTY_BODY,__SANE_MSGID,__TOCC_EXISTS
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 14 21:47:15 2006
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on puck.telkomsa.net
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=3.0 tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06
        autolearn=no version=3.1.0dd_header all Level **

Whis is it not doing as many checks as the FC5 machine? How can I change this?


-- 
Regards,

Scott Ryan
Telkom Internet
-------------------------------------
Good judgement comes with experience. 
Unfortunately, the experience
usually comes from bad judgement.
-------------------------------------

Reply via email to