On Sat, 2010-05-22 at 20:42 +0200, Yves Goergen wrote:
> I have recently added the 70_zmi_german_cf_zmi_sa-update_dostech_net
> rules to my sa-update call. The rules seem to get updated, I can also
> find the files under /var/lib/spamassassin/3.002005/. It just doesn't
> look as if they're regarded. In my reject log, none of the ZMI rules
> appear over days. And still some spam is passing the filter (though most
> should be catched).
It appears you believe, by just throwing in a new rule-set, you would
catch more spam. This assumption is false.
If it doesn't match, it doesn't match. *Your* particular spam in-stream,
that is.
In a later post you said:
> Or maybe the new rules don't catch a thing for me? How could I test that?
Sic. So you don't know, if it might help. You just added it to the mix
and expected it to do wonders.
If you do *not* know that it even *should* match anything for you, don't
assume it should. You pulled the rule-set via sa-update. You restarted
your spamd daemon. Thus, it works. Weather or not it catches a lot of
spam, is an entirely different topic.
You want to test, if it catches anything for you? Well, just check your
logs. Not specifically your reject log, mind you, but any SA rule hits.
Alternatively, have a look at the rule-set you blindly installed, and
check if it actually matches the spam you *want* to be caught.
Lastly, if you really wonder if sa-update and spamd are using the same
rules, you always can hand-craft a message that triggers one of these
rules. Feed it to your SA, and you'll see.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
