Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > > Am 29.06.2015 um 01:14 schrieb Charles Sprickman: >> If I run sa-learn and ask it to dump some info, that works: >> >> [root@spam-b /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin]# sa-learn >> --username=sp...@bway.net --dump magic >> 0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version >> 0.000 0 7 0 non-token data: nspam >> 0.000 0 243 0 non-token data: nham >> 0.000 0 56976 0 non-token data: ntokens >> 0.000 0 1435355510 0 non-token data: oldest atime >> 0.000 0 1435529521 0 non-token data: newest atime >> 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: last journal sync >> atime >> 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: last expiry atime >> 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: last expire atime >> delta >> 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: last expire >> reduction count >> >> But I never see any bayes rule hits in the headers of my emails > > it can't with just 7 spam samples
Oh my. So apparently my pre-spamassassin filtering is keeping all the best spam away from spamassassin. My autolearn threshold is set to 12 for spam. I’ll take it down a few notches, feed in some spam from elsewhere, and see what happens. Thanks for the pointer, it simply didn’t occur to me that it’s not going to do anything without a large enough spam/ham sample size. Charles
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
