Jari Fredriksson wrote:
Hi,
One thing I do not understand regarding AWL and BAYES.
When a message is reported to me as spam and was not
marked as spam, I test is using debug before and after
sa-learn. Each time I do this, BAYES_99 does hit, but
they will also include AWL.
1. Does anyone understand why this happens?
2. I also noticed that when using "spamassassin -D" on a
message, I sometimes see a nice report like below (2nd
example) but other times it doesn't show report
formatted. Any ideas on this one?
If I understood you correctly..
In your samples, the first run gets 3.9 points, which is less than needed to
classify the post as spam. The second run (after the learning) gets 5.2 points,
which is more than needed to classify the post as spam.
No. What I wanted to know is why do messages that are passed through
sa-learn include AWL as well as BAYES_99. Notice the message did not hit
AWL initially, but did so after the sa-learn process. giving a message a
AWL score of -1.2 and BAYES score of 3.5 compete with each other to mark
this message as spam.
Your configuration prints the formatted report only for spam. There is no point
in delivering reports to users for email which is not spam.
Sweet thanks for this.
The limit for spam is 5.0 points (as the report says, 5.0 required), which is
the default and a pretty good value.
Here are an example of two spam report headers for the
same message.
Before sa-learn:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.982 tagged_above=-9999
required=5 tests=[ADVANCE_FEE_1=0, BAYES_60=1,
SUB_HELLO=2.141, UNDISC_RECIPS=0.841] X-Spam-Score: 3.982
X-Spam-Level: ***
After sa-learn:
Content analysis details: (5.2 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------
2.1 SUB_HELLO Subject starts with "Hello"
0.8 UNDISC_RECIPS Valid-looking To
"undisclosed-recipients"
3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam
probability is 99 to 100%
[score: 1.0000]
0.0 ADVANCE_FEE_1 Appears to be advance fee
fraud (Nigerian 419) -1.2 AWL AWL:
From: address is in the auto white-list
Thanks,
Randy Ramsdell
