[Bug 5471] The personal whitelist is not used when we send a mail to a whitelited person and another whitelisted on not person
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5471 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Keywords||spamd Resolution|WORKSFORME | Summary|The personal whitelist is |The personal whitelist is |not used when two or more |not used when we send a mail |whitelisted mails are in the|to a whitelited person and |to or cc|another whitelisted on not ||person --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 03:08 --- My description was not correct. I try whit a concrete example 1 case) Karin white list a personal mail (@bluewin.ch) karin send a mail whit the personal mail (isb-sib.ch) to Karin personal mail and me (I'm not in the whitelist) [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can read this on the log: executing SQL: select preference, value from userpref where username = 'globaluser' or username = '@GLOBAL' order by username asc The mail is taged spam 2 case) Karin white list a personal mail (@bluewin.ch) karin send a mail only to the personal mail (isb-sib.ch) to Karin personal mail I can read this from the log: onfig: Conf::SQL: executing SQL: select preference, value from userpref where username = 'sonesson' or username = '@GLOBAL' order by username asc the mail is not taged SPAM. The only difference I see is that in the first case the sql don't use a username of karin For info header and log: first case: Header: Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from mail.isb-sib.ch ([unix socket]) by mail.isb-sib.ch (Cyrus v2.3.1-Invoca-RPM-2.3.1-2.6) with LMTPA; Fri, 18 May 2007 16:48:42 +0200 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.3 Received: from expasy-ng.isb-sib.ch (expasy-ng.isb-sib.ch [192.33.215.142]) by mail.isb-sib.ch (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l4IEkteL015898 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Fri, 18 May 2007 16:46:55 +0200 Received: from mail29.bluewin.ch (mail29.bluewin.ch [195.186.18.70]) by expasy-ng.isb-sib.ch (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id l4IEjlDx000805; Fri, 18 May 2007 16:45:48 +0200 Received: from lps2zhh.bluewin.ch (195.186.19.192) by mail29.bluewin.ch (Bluewin 7.3.121) id 4649A36B000DA487; Fri, 18 May 2007 14:45:47 + Received: from lps2zhh (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lps2zhh.bluewin.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06097690; Fri, 18 May 2007 14:45:48 + (GMT) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:45:48 + (GMT) From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: test4 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-FXIT-IP: 129.194.8.73 X-sib-ng-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-sib-ng-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-sib-ng-MailScanner-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.2 required=5.5 tests=BAYES_50,TVD_SPACE_RATIO autolearn=no version=3.2.0 X-Spam-Report: * 2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5043] * 2.2 TVD_SPACE_RATIO BODY: TVD_SPACE_RATIO X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0 (2007-05-01) on mail.isb-sib.ch X-sib-mail-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-sib-mail-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-sib-mail-MailScanner-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LOG: May 18 16:46:55 mail sendmail[15898]: l4IEkteL015898: from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=1029, class=0, nrcpts=2, msgid=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=expasy-ng.isb-sib.ch [192.33.215.142] May 18 16:46:55 mail spamd[11157]: spamd: connection from localhost [127.0.0.1] at port 36337 May 18 16:46:55 mail spamd[11157]: config: Conf::SQL: executing SQL: select preference, value from userpref where username = 'gl obaluser' or username = '@GLOBAL' order by username asc May 18 16:46:55 mail spamd[11157]: config: retrieving prefs for globaluser from SQL server May 18 16:46:55 mail spamd[11157]: info: user has changed May 18 16:46:55 mail spamd[11157]: bayes: using username: globaluser May 18 16:46:55 mail spamd[11157]: bayes: database connection established May 18 16:46:55 mail spamd[11157]: bayes: found bayes db version 3 May 18 16:46:55 mail spamd[11157]: bayes: Using userid: 1 May 18 16:46:55 mail spamd[11157]: config: score set 3 chosen. May 18 16:46:55 mail spamd[11157]: message: line ending changed to CRLF May 18 16:46:55 mail spamd[11157]: message: main message type: text/plain May 18 16:46:55 mail spamd[11157]: spamd: processing message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> f or globaluser:104 May 18 16:48:43 mail sendmail[
[Bug 5476] Update Bonded Sender Tests
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5476 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 03:20 --- assuming RCVD_IN_SSC_TRUSTED_COI has the same confirmed-opt-in criteria as HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI, then -8.0 sounds fair -- it matches the other rule's score. I'm not 100% sure about changing the names of the existing rules to RCVD_IN_SSC_* though, since people may have local customisations (score changes etc.) hmm. --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5471] The personal whitelist is not used when we send a mail to a whitelited person and another whitelisted on not person
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5471 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 04:57 --- Notice in the second message that the Received headers say "for [EMAIL PROTECTED])" and you don't see that in the first message. What is happening is that when mail arrives that is addressed to more than one address that is local to your system, only one copy is processed until finally multiple copies are delivered, one to each local recipient address. This is more efficient than making multiple copies of the mail first and then fully processing and delivering each copy. But there are tradeoffs. One of the tradeoffs is that it becomes no longer possible to use an individual user's SpamAssassin preferences when there is more than one local user in the recipient list. That's because the SpamAssassin scanning is done before separate copies of the message are made for final delivery. What you are seeing is not the result of anything that SpamAssassin has done. It has to do with the way your MailScanner is set up to call SpamAssassin to use a specific user's preferences when there is only one user to choose, but to call it using a global user ID when there is no one unambiguous user id to use. In your first example, MailScanner has no way to decide whether to use karen.sonnesson's SpamAssassin preferences or to whether use salvo.paesano's prefrences, so it can't choose either one. If you want to always use a user's preferences and don't mind the extra resource costs, you could change to invoking SpamAssassin in procmail scripts. Procmail is part of the delivery and always comes after mail to multiple local people has been split into a copy for each individual. I'm closing this again as "invalid", the category for "not a SpamAssasssin bug". --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5471] The personal whitelist is not used when we send a mail to a whitelited person and another whitelisted on not person
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5471 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 05:46 --- thanks for the help and sorry... --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5482] New: cannot open bayes databases
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5482 Summary: cannot open bayes databases Product: Spamassassin Version: 3.2.0 Platform: PC OS/Version: FreeBSD Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P5 Component: spamc/spamd AssignedTo: dev@spamassassin.apache.org ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] spamassassin server - 3gb ram, intel quad core 2.4 cpu,freebsd 6.2 Every day the bayesian database gets corrupted. We see the following in the log file. We only use sqlite for scores. bayes: cannot open bayes databases /usr/local/share/spamassassin/bayes_* R/W: lock failed: Interrupted system call When we see the following in the logfile memory is at 1gig +. However after restarting spamassassin there are memory usage goes right back to 400mb. Something is corrupting the database. I have to stop spamassassin, rm bayes* and restart spamassassin. Thanks. --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
Re: sa-update-keys
Duncan Findlay writes: > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 02:44:58PM -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: > > Duncan Findlay wrote: > > >I'm working on the 3.2.0 Debian package and I'm running into some > > >problems with the way I handle the sa-update-keys directory. > > >It's in /etc/spamassassin/sa-update-keys, which implies it contains > > >configurations file. As far as I can tell, it's not something that we > > >expect anyone to touch manually (we specifically provide sa-update > > >--import to import keys instead of having them use gpg directly on > > >these files), so it would seem to me that it should be in > > >/var/lib/spamassassin/sa-update-keys or something instead. > > > I wouldn't put it there... you should be able to rm /var/lib/spamassassin > > and have everything continue to work fine. > > Well... It would assuming you have no non-standard channels. > > > >Is there a reason I'm missing for putting it in /etc? > > > The keys aren't really variable (we're not going to release new ones in a > > rule update), they are a part of the software > > configuration and configurable (manually or with sa-update) though. > > I'm not sure I buy that -- they really aren't configuration. I mean > you might configure which keys to allow, but the actual contents of > the public keys aren't really configuration information. The fact that the admin has imported key K for host H, however, is important config info. I agree with Daryl -- /etc makes the most sense for these in my opinion... --j.
Re: sa-update-keys
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 02:44:58PM -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: > Duncan Findlay wrote: > >I'm working on the 3.2.0 Debian package and I'm running into some > >problems with the way I handle the sa-update-keys directory. > >It's in /etc/spamassassin/sa-update-keys, which implies it contains > >configurations file. As far as I can tell, it's not something that we > >expect anyone to touch manually (we specifically provide sa-update > >--import to import keys instead of having them use gpg directly on > >these files), so it would seem to me that it should be in > >/var/lib/spamassassin/sa-update-keys or something instead. > I wouldn't put it there... you should be able to rm /var/lib/spamassassin and > have everything continue to work fine. Well... It would assuming you have no non-standard channels. > >Is there a reason I'm missing for putting it in /etc? > The keys aren't really variable (we're not going to release new ones in a > rule update), they are a part of the software > configuration and configurable (manually or with sa-update) though. I'm not sure I buy that -- they really aren't configuration. I mean you might configure which keys to allow, but the actual contents of the public keys aren't really configuration information. -- Duncan Findlay pgpFJ0FZXt6pm.pgp Description: PGP signature
[Bug 5483] New: FP for CTYPE_001C_A=1.498
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5483 Summary: FP for CTYPE_001C_A=1.498 Product: Spamassassin Version: 3.2.0 Platform: Other OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Rules AssignedTo: dev@spamassassin.apache.org ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 15:08:46 GMT From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [SPAM] Registration Confirmation - GoldMine Interactive Online Demo To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Receiver: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_0001_01C0717E.8D3C2140" X-Mailer: ViewCentral Email Communicator for Windows 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message X-MimeOLE: Produced By ViewCentral Email Communicator, Version 1.0 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 May 2007 15:08:46.0400 (UTC) FILETIME=[97705C00:01C79EDE] Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, why is this content type inherently 'spam'? a score of 1.48 is pretty high just for a random number generated by some email system. --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5466] SA Rules for some of IADB data say "spam" for things like publishing rDNS and using COI
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5466 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 08:46 --- Anne -- do those scores that Matt posted make sense? drop a comment here if there's still issues. --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5477] Rule2XSBody emits an info message before daemonization
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5477 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 14:43 --- Created an attachment (id=3952) --> (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3952&action=view) suggested patch [EMAIL PROTECTED] trunk]$ svn ci -m "bug 5477: prevent Rule2XSBody info message from appearing on stderr during spamd startup" Sendinglib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Rule2XSBody.pm Transmitting file data . Committed revision 541787. [EMAIL PROTECTED] trunk]$ --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5477] [review] Rule2XSBody emits an info message before daemonization
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5477 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Rule2XSBody emits an info |[review] Rule2XSBody emits |message before daemonization|an info message before ||daemonization Status Whiteboard||needs 2 votes --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5445] eval tests defined in user_rules cause warnings
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 14:55 --- reproduced on trunk... --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5477] [review] Rule2XSBody emits an info message before daemonization
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5477 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|needs 2 votes |needs 1 vote --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 15:53 --- +1 works for me. --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
