On Thu, 15 May 2008, Kathryn Kleinschafer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Pastebin for email: http://pastebin.ca/1018368
> Pastebin for spam check results: http://pastebin.ca/1018373
>
> Thanks
> Kate
>
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 16:25 +1200, Kathryn Kleinschafer wrote:
> >
> >> which seems to me that it is actually loading up the correct files - yet
> >> when i do a test on a piece of mail which should hit heaps of rules
> >> especially the sought_rules it is not hitting at all.
> >> Are there any other tests I can do?
Feeding your example spam thru our SA hit lots of rules, including
3 different hits from JM_SOUGHT_* (JM_SOUGHT_1, JM_SOUGHT_2, JM_SOUGHT_3).
Is there any way that you can get your mail system to keep internal
copies of the queue-files (or how ever your messages are fed to SA)
so you can see what is actually being checked?
Also look to see what User-ID your SA filtering process runs as
and then check to see if there are some parts of your SA setup or
your Perl installation that aren't properly readable/usable by that
User-ID.
(for example, if an update was done as 'root' with a umask of 077
then the installed rules/updates would not be useable by anybody
else).
Shell search paths might be another reason for differences between
manual tests and automatic processing scores.
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
