Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote
> On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 13:02 -0700, Robert Grimes wrote:
>> Robert Grimes wrote
>
>> > I have changed the user that runs the spamd service to be the same as
>> when
>> > I ran from command line. I will see what, if any changes occur. I will
>> > leave Bayes alone for the moment; just try one thing at a time to keep
>> the
>> > confusion down.
>
> By that change of the user your spamd service runs as, you lost your
> previous Bayes training (which seems to be linked to the service user).
> Unless you deliberately nuked the Bayes DB to start fresh.
>
>
> Ignoring DNSBL blocking and broken format, which has been covered
> already.
>
>> X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0
>> tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_HELO_PASS,
>> URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
>
> There is no BAYES_xx rule hit. If Bayes is enabled and has been trained
> sufficiently, there will *always* be a BAYES_xx rule indicating the
> Bayesian probability of being spam.
>
> The absence of any such rule since you changed the spamd service user
> means, that user has no access to the previously trained Bayes DB.
>
>> I saved the messaged from outlook and ran spamc [...]
>
>> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.3 required=5.0
>> tests=MISSING_DATE,MISSING_FROM,
>>
>> MISSING_HEADERS,MISSING_MID,MISSING_SUBJECT,NO_HEADERS_MESSAGE,NO_RECEIVED,
>> NO_RELAYS,NULL_IN_BODY,URIBL_BLOCKED,URI_HEX autolearn=no
>> autolearn_force=no
>> version=3.4.0
>
> No BAYES_xx rule either, same problem as above.
>
> However, do note the autolearn=no part. Bayes is enabled (just not
> sufficiently trained yet). In a follow-up to this thread, you pasted
> headers of spam manually scanned with spamc, showing autolearn=ham.
>
> A spam message incorrectly has been learned as ham. You want to correct
> that by re-training (simply learn as spam). And keep an eye on that part
> in future.
>
>
>> both should be running under the same administrator account.
>
> It is important to use the same user (a) scanning incoming mail, and
> (b) using for training as well as (c) manually running through spamc
> later.
>
> Unless spamd changes user on a per-recipient basis (which it seems is
> not the case in your setup), that's a single user. Changing that user as
> you just did, requires moving $HOME data or changing ownership for the
> Bayes DB.
>
>
> --
> char
> *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@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; }}}
I don't know if this is fair to ask, but would you (or anyone) care to see
if the message I am posting should be rated higher than 1.9? I appologize if
this is not appropriate.
The message is at http://pastebin.com/UZeDtLWZ
The debug log from spamd is at http://pastebin.com/6FERLq5C
--
View this message in context:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/New-at-SpamAssassin-how-to-not-get-headers-tp110712p110746.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
