On 7/14/2010 8:42 AM, Emin Akbulut wrote:
> I run SA Win32 port 3.3.1 by JAM Software on Windows Server 2008 64 bit.
> Spamassassin.exe always calculates the same score, coz User_Prefs file is 
> under my docs (C:\Users\ea\.spamassassin)
>
> However spamd.exe -which runs as service- calculates the right score
> at first time
> then score goes very low at subsequent checks. spamd runs under system
> account
> and it's User_Prefs file is located
> under C:\Windows\SysWOW64\config\systemprofile\.spamassassin
>
> I have no idea why spamd calculates different scores. I hope someone
> here knows
> the reason & has a solution.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> First run:
> -----------------------------------------------
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on WebServer
> X-Spam-Flag: YES
> X-Spam-Level: *************************
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=25.7 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
> HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,HTML_MESSAGE,LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT,MIME_HTML_ONLY,
> MISSING_DATE,MISSING_MID,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT,
> RCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_XBL,RDNS_NONE,TO_NO_BRKTS_NORDNS_HTML,T_SURBL_MULTI1,
> T_SURBL_MULTI2,T_SURBL_MULTI3,T_SURBL_MULTI4,T_URIBL_BLACK_OVERLAP,
> URIBL_AB_SURBL,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_DBL_SPAM,URIBL_JP_SURBL,URIBL_OB_SURBL,
> URIBL_SBL,URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL autolearn=unavailable
> version=3.3.1
>
>
> Next runs:
> -----------------------------------------------
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on WebServer
> X-Spam-Level: **
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,
> HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,HTML_MESSAGE,LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT,MIME_HTML_ONLY
> autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1

What sticks out to me is that most of the missing score hits on the
second run are from blacklists.  It seems like the second run is doing
local tests only.  Are you sure they are running the same way?  Can you
tell us how each of these tests are run?  I assume the first one is the
automatic test when the email is received and the second is a manual
call to spamc?

-- 
Bowie

Reply via email to