Re: bayes_99 matching since sa-update

[Matt Kettler]

Rolf Loudon wrote:
>
>>  What's a
>> "sa-learn --dump magic" output look like?
>
> # sa-learn --dump magic
> 0.000  0  3  0  non-token data: bayes db version
> 0.000  0297  0  non-token data: nspam
> 0.000  0 982365  0  non-token data: nham
> 0.000  0 160628  0  non-token data: ntokens
> 0.000  0 1195344836  0  non-token data: oldest atime
> 0.000  0 1195532636  0  non-token data: newest atime
> 0.000  0 1195532327  0  non-token data: last journal
> sync atime
> 0.000  0 1195517625  0  non-token data: last expiry atime
> 0.000  0 172800  0  non-token data: last expire
> atime delta
> 0.000  0  72520  0  non-token data: last expire
> reduction count
>
> Thoughts?
That's a *really* unusual sa-learn dump, and would imply that bayes was
completely inactive until recently.

Note that there are 900k messages that have been trained as ham (ie:
nonspam email), but only 297 trained as spam. That's very little spam
compared to the quantity of ham. Usually you see by more spam than ham,
but not by that large a margin (50:1 spam to ham isn't unheard of.. but
this is 1:3307).

Did you do some really goofy hand training with sa-learn, or did the
autolearner really do that? If it's all autolearning, do you have a lot
of spam matching ALL_TRUSTED?

Also bayes won't become active until there are at least 200 spams and
200 hams, and given there's only 297 spams, it may not have crossed that
line until recently and bayes may have been disabled.

I'd be very concerned about the health of your bayes database. It's
possible the autolearner went awry and learned poorly here.

 I would seriously consider doing the following, if at all possible:

1) round up a few hundred spam and nonspam messages as text files (with
complete headers)
2) run sa-learn --clear to wipe out your bayes database
3) use sa-learn --spam and sa-learn --ham to hand-train those messages
from step 1.

Once given a little hand training, usually the autolearner is fine (with
the occasional hand training to fix minor confusions, but it looks like
you're way past minor confusion...).

Re: HAM in Outlook to SA Learn

[Jason Holbrook]

Michael:
Thank you for your response. Point well taken.

Question, using postfix, mailscanner, spamassassin and clam av as my incoming 
mail gateway, for an exchange based backend, is there an efficient way to get 
mail from an outlook client back into my MTA, particularly spamassassion in 
order to build the salearn / ham database.

I am rather new to open source and have encountered some header issues between 
exchange and my mta. 

It is my goal to require zero admin on the part of my users. I wish the 
antispam solution to be transparent to them.

Therefore I feel I am looking for a way to like you said take good mail, ie the 
sent folder and make it available to my Linux MTA in order for it to learn the 
HAM's. 

I apologize for amy lack of knowledge I may be exuding, but this is one of 
those situations where I am sure this can be done but I am just not quite 
putting it together.

Thanks to Michael and the community in advance.

Jason
Best Regards,
Jason Holbrook
Chief Technology Integrator / Partner
Empower Information Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
weblog.empoweris.com 
www.empoweris.com 
Skype: holbrook.jason
Gtalk: jaholbrook
757-320-2667 (Direct)
757-273-9399 (office)
757-715-1944 (cell)
866-477-1544 (toll free)

 
This message is being sent by or on behalf of Empower Information Systems. It 
is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  
This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or 
confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.  If you are not the 
named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or 
disseminate this message or any part of it.  If you have received this message 
in error, please notify the sender Jason Holbrook immediately by e-mail [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and delete all copies of this message.

Empower Information Systems operates under a zero spam policy. If you believe 
this message to be spam, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

- Original Message -
From: Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jason Holbrook; users@spamassassin.apache.org 

Sent: Mon Nov 19 22:31:11 2007
Subject: RE: HAM in Outlook to SA Learn

 
the question is what?
how to train sa-learn without populating folders or how to get a corpus of 'non 
spam'?
 
The FAQ's suggest getting emails from your 'sent items' folder. 
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
Office: 561-999-5000 x 1259
Direct: 561-939-7259
Real time security alerts: http://www.secnap.com/news




This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap™. 
For Information please see www.spammertrap.com 




-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by Empower Information Systems  , 
and is 
believed to be clean. 

Re: bayes_99 matching since sa-update

[Rolf Loudon]

hi

I use sa-update with channels  and updates.spamassassin.org.

After the latest run today I am getting matches against BAYES_99
(which adds 3.5) to many messages, where they previously triggered
virtually no rules at all.

This is causing many false positives, to the extent that I've had to
set the score to zero to avoid them.

Anyone else seeing this? Better, have the rule or rules that are
causing this been identified (and fixed)?

Else, if the bayes db has been damaged by something, how do I remove
whatever is persuading it about the high probability this rule  
indicates?


Well, the sa-update itself wouldn't change the behavior of BAYES_99
unless there was a grossly stupid or malicious error made by the
maintainers.  All sa-update could do is change the rule, which  
amounts to:


body BAYES_99   eval:check_bayes('0.99', '1.00')


Thanks.  Yes that is how I reasoned it too.


*however* an updated ruleset might change the behavior of your
auto-learning, by increasing spam scores with rule hits. You might  
want

to go digging through your logs and see if there's a lot more spam
autolearning going on post-upgrade.  That said, I'd expect that to  
make

a change over a period of a few weeks, not instantly.


Agreed and a quick look through the logs showed that bayes_99 was  
listed in all reports over the last day, but virtually non existent  
for a week or so before that.  which pointed to some amiss by dint of  
upgrade.



Perhaps your bayes DB is merely just not well trained and this is a
problem that's been building but went unnoticed so far? What's a
"sa-learn --dump magic" output look like?


# sa-learn --dump magic
0.000  0  3  0  non-token data: bayes db version
0.000  0297  0  non-token data: nspam
0.000  0 982365  0  non-token data: nham
0.000  0 160628  0  non-token data: ntokens
0.000  0 1195344836  0  non-token data: oldest atime
0.000  0 1195532636  0  non-token data: newest atime
0.000  0 1195532327  0  non-token data: last journal  
sync atime
0.000  0 1195517625  0  non-token data: last expiry  
atime
0.000  0 172800  0  non-token data: last expire  
atime delta
0.000  0  72520  0  non-token data: last expire  
reduction count


Thoughts?

many thanks

rolf.


This message may contain confidential information which is intended only for 
the individual named.
If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or 
copy this email.
Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email 
by mistake and delete this email from your system.
Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as 
information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or 
incomplete, or contain viruses.
The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions
in the contents of this message which arise as a result of email transmission.
If verification is required please request a hard copy version.

Re: bayes_99 matching since sa-update

[Matt Kettler]

Rolf Loudon wrote:
> hi
>
> I use sa-update with channels  and updates.spamassassin.org.
>
> After the latest run today I am getting matches against BAYES_99
> (which adds 3.5) to many messages, where they previously triggered
> virtually no rules at all.
>
> This is causing many false positives, to the extent that I've had to
> set the score to zero to avoid them.
>
> Anyone else seeing this? Better, have the rule or rules that are
> causing this been identified (and fixed)?
>
> Else, if the bayes db has been damaged by something, how do I remove
> whatever is persuading it about the high probability this rule indicates? 

Well, the sa-update itself wouldn't change the behavior of BAYES_99
unless there was a grossly stupid or malicious error made by the
maintainers.  All sa-update could do is change the rule, which amounts to:

body BAYES_99   eval:check_bayes('0.99', '1.00')

And it's pretty much been that for a few years now, and the latest
sa-update is no different. An error here would be really obvious.
BAYES_99's real behavior is going to be based on the contents of your
bayes database and possibly changes to the bayes code, neither of which
is touched by sa-update.

*however* an updated ruleset might change the behavior of your
auto-learning, by increasing spam scores with rule hits. You might want
to go digging through your logs and see if there's a lot more spam
autolearning going on post-upgrade.  That said, I'd expect that to make
a change over a period of a few weeks, not instantly.

Perhaps your bayes DB is merely just not well trained and this is a
problem that's been building but went unnoticed so far? What's a
"sa-learn --dump magic" output look like?

RE: HAM in Outlook to SA Learn

[Michael Scheidell]

 
the question is what?
how to train sa-learn without populating folders or how to get a corpus
of 'non spam'?
 
The FAQ's suggest getting emails from your 'sent items' folder. 
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
Office: 561-999-5000 x 1259
Direct: 561-939-7259
Real time security alerts: http://www.secnap.com/news


_
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(tm). 
For Information please see http://www.spammertrap.com
_

bayes_99 matching since sa-update

[Rolf Loudon]

hi

I use sa-update with channels saupdates.openprotect.com and  
updates.spamassassin.org.


After the latest run today I am getting matches against BAYES_99  
(which adds 3.5) to many messages, where they previously triggered  
virtually no rules at all.


This is causing many false positives, to the extent that I've had to  
set the score to zero to avoid them.


Anyone else seeing this? Better, have the rule or rules that are  
causing this been identified (and fixed)?


Else, if the bayes db has been damaged by something, how do I remove  
whatever is persuading it about the high probability this rule  
indicates?


thanks

rolf.


This message may contain confidential information which is intended only for 
the individual named.
If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or 
copy this email.
Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email 
by mistake and delete this email from your system.
Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as 
information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or 
incomplete, or contain viruses.
The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions
in the contents of this message which arise as a result of email transmission.
If verification is required please request a hard copy version.

Re: posting thru gmane to this list and not getting bombarded

[Justin Mason]

Micah Anderson writes:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071119 10:01]:
> > N> PS: I post to this list using gmane. Is it possible to stop delivery
> > N> on my email address so that I can post but I do not receive the list
> > N> messages?
> > 
> > http://www.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Can this information be added to
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/MailingLists ?

go for it!  it's a wiki ;)

HAM in Outlook to SA Learn

[Jason Holbrook]

Hello all:

Scenario:

I would like to take HAM mail from out look and let it be used to train
the SA-Learn Bayes filter. I do not want my users though to start
dragging and dropping mail into folders for SA-Learn to pull from. I
wish to admin all the learning features on the back end. I have
successfully populated sa_learn for SPAM with a ton of bad mail, I now
neew to populate the HAM side of the equation.

 

Any and all ideas would be appreciated, if you need more info or I have
done a poor job of explaining I will be happy to expound

 

Jason

 

Best Regards,

Jason Holbrook

Chief Technology Integrator / Partner

Empower Information Systems

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

weblog.empoweris.com

www.empoweris.com

Skype: holbrook.jason

Gtalk: jaholbrook

757-320-2667 (Direct)

757-273-9399 (office)

757-715-1944 (cell)

866-477-1544 (toll free)

 

 

This message is being sent by or on behalf of Empower Information
Systems. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to
which it is addressed.  This communication may contain information that
is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt
from disclosure.  If you are not the named addressee, you are not
authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or
any part of it.  If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender Jason Holbrook immediately by e-mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete all copies of this message.

 

Empower Information Systems operates under a zero spam policy. If you
believe this message to be spam, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 

Re: posting thru gmane to this list and not getting bombarded

[Micah Anderson]

* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071119 10:01]:
> N> PS: I post to this list using gmane. Is it possible to stop delivery
> N> on my email address so that I can post but I do not receive the list
> N> messages?
> 
> http://www.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Can this information be added to
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/MailingLists ?

Micah


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: posting thru gmane to this list and not getting bombarded

[jidanni]

>> http://www.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
N> I think that address is not working any more. I first unsubscribed
N> from the list and then I sent a message to that address: that's what I got

>> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at apache.org. I'm afraid I
>> wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
>> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: ezmlm-manage: fatal: I don't
>> accept messages at this address (inlocal and/or inhost don't match)
>> (#5.1.1)
N> Any Ideas?

Or maybe I forgot the exact address. You see it isn't documented
anywhere, so we GMANE.ORG etc. readers have to ask the same question
each time: "how to post but not get bombarded?"

I even dug into to the ezmlm source code site for several hours only
to find that it just says "easy, just unsubscribe" if you want mailman
style "nomail" settings.

Re: perl script which extract a mail from the appendix of an other mail

[Stefan Jakobs]

On Monday 19 November 2007 06:08, ram wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 23:36 +0100, Stefan Jakobs wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > I need a perl script which is able to extract a mail from the appendix of
> > an other mail.
> > The idea is that people can send me mails with non recognized spams in
> > the appendix. Then I can extract the spam from the appendix and will
> > learn it with sa-learn. That leaves the headers untouched and seams to
> > better as an bounce.
>
> I think There was a utility called sa-wrapper , google for it

I already tried munpack, but had problems to compile it. The sa-wrapper script 
looks like what I searched for.

Thank you
Stefan



pgpJZwKTVhCBW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: perl script which extract a mail from the appendix of an other mail

[Theo Van Dinter]

On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:36:12PM +0100, Stefan Jakobs wrote:
> I need a perl script which is able to extract a mail from the appendix of an 
> other mail. 

There are samples of that kind of thing using the Mail::SpamAssassin::Message
module.  Search the list archive.

-- 
Randomly Selected Tagline:
"I'm not allowed to go to Home Depot anymore because I once made the mistake
 of trying to build a deck." - Hal Stern


pgp8udhUeEIY5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: posting thru gmane to this list and not getting bombarded

[jidanni]

N> PS: I post to this list using gmane. Is it possible to stop delivery
N> on my email address so that I can post but I do not receive the list
N> messages?

http://www.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is it possible to detect/undo report_safe?

[Theo Van Dinter]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:21:12AM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > machines. Is there a way to detect (in ways of a script) that a mail has 
> > been 
> > processed by report safe, or yet better, a done way to undo it? I've heard 
> > sa-learn does it, so i'd guess it has been done ...

Oh, also, if mails are coming in w/ "X-Spam-Status: Yes" or whatever,
you could always choose to just block those mails via the MTA/etc.

IMO, if someone else is telling you that the mail is spam, why bother
accepting it?

-- 
Randomly Selected Tagline:
Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts only until
 you realize it was your money to start with.
 - Washington Post


pgpx6vpI98f02.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is it possible to detect/undo report_safe?

[Theo Van Dinter]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:21:12AM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > machines. Is there a way to detect (in ways of a script) that a mail has 
> > been 
> > processed by report safe, or yet better, a done way to undo it? I've heard 
> > sa-learn does it, so i'd guess it has been done ...

"spamassassin -d"

-- 
Randomly Selected Tagline:
"...Deep Hack Mode--that mysterious and frightening state of
 consciousness where Mortal Users fear to tread."
 (By Matt Welsh)


pgpJRzUV2A2RH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: SQL-based AWL and Bayes not working with 3.2.3

[Michael Parker]

On Nov 19, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Andrew Hearn (AAISP) wrote:


Rene Caspari wrote:

Hi,

I'm using spamassassing 3.2.3 with userspecific rules from an SQL
database:

/etc/spamassassin/local.cf:
user_scores_dsn DBI:mysql:spamassassin:localhost
[...]
bayes_store_module  Mail::SpamAssassin::BayesStore::SQL
[...]
auto_whitelist_factory  Mail::SpamAssassin::SQLBasedAddrList

spamc is called by procmail.
/etc/procmailrc:
:0fw
* < 256000
| /usr/bin/spamc -U /var/run/spamd.sock -u $USER

(where $USER is created by Postfix:
/usr/bin/procmail -t -m USER=${recipient} SENDER=${sender} /etc/ 
procmailrc)


Since I updated to 3.2.3 (Debian Volatile) I get the error message in
/var/log/mail.log:
[...] spamd: still running as root: user not specified with -u, not  
found, or set to root, falling back to nobody


After this, spamassassin uses the userspecific SQL tables with the  
user
"nobody" not the specific user, who is the recepient of the  
scanning mail.


Do you have an idea how I can resolve this?


I think I have the same problem too, on one of our tests servers. this
is one I'm running 3.2.3 on, and using the same config from our other
3.1.7 machines which are happy with Bayes...

User preference is being used, as I can tell that as the required  
score

is being set correctly from the preferences.



I've also recently seen this issue.  I believe it relates to the  
recent setuid changes in spamd.  What I'm not sure of is if its a BUG  
or just a behavior change that we need to account for.  If you run  
spamd in debug mode you can see it handle the passed in user and then  
force the drop back to user nobody.


Michael

Re: SQL-based AWL and Bayes not working with 3.2.3

[Andrew Hearn (AAISP)]

Rene Caspari wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm using spamassassing 3.2.3 with userspecific rules from an SQL
> database:
> 
> /etc/spamassassin/local.cf:
> user_scores_dsn DBI:mysql:spamassassin:localhost
> [...]
> bayes_store_module  Mail::SpamAssassin::BayesStore::SQL
> [...]
> auto_whitelist_factory  Mail::SpamAssassin::SQLBasedAddrList
> 
> spamc is called by procmail.
> /etc/procmailrc:
> :0fw
> * < 256000
> | /usr/bin/spamc -U /var/run/spamd.sock -u $USER
> 
> (where $USER is created by Postfix:
> /usr/bin/procmail -t -m USER=${recipient} SENDER=${sender} /etc/procmailrc)
> 
> Since I updated to 3.2.3 (Debian Volatile) I get the error message in
> /var/log/mail.log:
> [...] spamd: still running as root: user not specified with -u, not found, or 
> set to root, falling back to nobody
> 
> After this, spamassassin uses the userspecific SQL tables with the user
> "nobody" not the specific user, who is the recepient of the scanning mail.
> 
> Do you have an idea how I can resolve this?

I think I have the same problem too, on one of our tests servers. this
is one I'm running 3.2.3 on, and using the same config from our other
3.1.7 machines which are happy with Bayes...

User preference is being used, as I can tell that as the required score
is being set correctly from the preferences.




-- 
Andrew Hearn

Re: No dbs present & modules not installed

[Matt Kettler]

Paul Arnone wrote:
> SpamAssassin does not appear to be adding anything to any emails at all.  I
> do not know where in our mail chain SpamAssassin was being called (but I
> guess I'll have to figure it out).
>
> We use qmail and clamav with SA.  I'll have to go through the boot process
> step by step to see if I can figure out where SA gets called.  If you are
> familiar with this setup though, any tips to narrow down my search would be
> appreciated.

Well, don't look at the boot process. That will merely tell you where
spamd is started. You want to examine your email process, starting with
where mail gets received.

With Qmail, you might want to look at Qmail's queuing stuff, or look for
signs of simscan or QmailScanner, but I'm no Qmail expert.

Some ways of integrating SA into qmail are detailed at:

http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/IntegratedInQmailWithIfspamh

http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/IntegratedInQmailWithQmailScanner

And simscan's site is at:

http://www.inter7.com/simscan/

RE: No dbs present & modules not installed

[Paul Arnone]

We do have Simscan installed which I believe is supposed to do what you say
and call SpamAssassin.  Now all I need to do is find out where.

Paul Arnone
Network Administrator
---
NuTech Solutions, Inc.
121 West Trade Street - Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28202
(704)943-5423

-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:27 AM
To: Paul Arnone
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: No dbs present & modules not installed

Paul Arnone wrote:
> Thanks.  Good to know that some of those modules are optional.
>
> SpamAssassin was already in place on our server when I started working
here.
> But sometime after the old Network Admin left, it stopped flagging our
> emails.
>
> If bayes is optional for SA, then I could change use_bayes 1 to use_bayes
0
> in local.cf and comment out the other bayes_ classifier options and it
> should work?
>   
It should work even with those options in place.

SpamAssassin normally treats configuration conflicts as warnings and
just ignores them. ie: if you tell it to use a feature, but the modules
aren't present, it just ignores you and disables the feature and goes on
its merry way.

Now, you say it stopped flagging messages.. Is it just missing a lot of
spam, or is it not adding anything to any emails at all?

If it's not adding anything to any emails, odds are someone made a
configuration change that disabled calling spamassassin. Do you know
where in your mail chain SpamAssassin was being called before? Was it in
procmail, or using a milter, or some other thing?

As I said before, merely having spamd running (ie: starting the
spamassassin service) doesn't do anything to your email. There needs to
be some part of your mail chain configured to call spamassassin, or
spamc, or load the Mail::SpamAssassin perl API and feed messages to it.
(and unless you're using spamc, running spamd is pointless)

RE: No dbs present & modules not installed

[Paul Arnone]

SpamAssassin does not appear to be adding anything to any emails at all.  I
do not know where in our mail chain SpamAssassin was being called (but I
guess I'll have to figure it out).

We use qmail and clamav with SA.  I'll have to go through the boot process
step by step to see if I can figure out where SA gets called.  If you are
familiar with this setup though, any tips to narrow down my search would be
appreciated.

Thanks,

Paul Arnone
Network Administrator
---
NuTech Solutions, Inc.
121 West Trade Street - Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28202
(704)943-5423

-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:27 AM
To: Paul Arnone
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: No dbs present & modules not installed

Paul Arnone wrote:
> Thanks.  Good to know that some of those modules are optional.
>
> SpamAssassin was already in place on our server when I started working
here.
> But sometime after the old Network Admin left, it stopped flagging our
> emails.
>
> If bayes is optional for SA, then I could change use_bayes 1 to use_bayes
0
> in local.cf and comment out the other bayes_ classifier options and it
> should work?
>   
It should work even with those options in place.

SpamAssassin normally treats configuration conflicts as warnings and
just ignores them. ie: if you tell it to use a feature, but the modules
aren't present, it just ignores you and disables the feature and goes on
its merry way.

Now, you say it stopped flagging messages.. Is it just missing a lot of
spam, or is it not adding anything to any emails at all?

If it's not adding anything to any emails, odds are someone made a
configuration change that disabled calling spamassassin. Do you know
where in your mail chain SpamAssassin was being called before? Was it in
procmail, or using a milter, or some other thing?

As I said before, merely having spamd running (ie: starting the
spamassassin service) doesn't do anything to your email. There needs to
be some part of your mail chain configured to call spamassassin, or
spamc, or load the Mail::SpamAssassin perl API and feed messages to it.
(and unless you're using spamc, running spamd is pointless)

Re: Is it possible to detect/undo report_safe?

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

On 18.11.07 21:54, Stefan Walk wrote:
> I'm kind of annoyed because there are, for a few of my email addresses, 
> several spamassassins at work, and they all use report_safe. On the final 
> machine (mine), there's a spamassassin running too. So, to prevent a message 
> from ending up in my mail client encapsulated in 5 spamassassin "envelopes", 
> i want to undo the effects of the report_safe setting on the previous 
> machines. Is there a way to detect (in ways of a script) that a mail has been 
> processed by report safe, or yet better, a done way to undo it? I've heard 
> sa-learn does it, so i'd guess it has been done ...

can't you somehow kick them into balls?
munpack can do that probably. However, it's bad idea to do repeated SA
checks, especially on mail "preprocessed" by another SA.
-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges. 

Re: sa-learn and message size

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

> Matus UHLAR - fantomas schrieb:
> >(you can install sa-3.2.3 from debian-volatile archive now)

On 18.11.07 21:56, Nico Weinreich wrote:
> I've upgraded to 3.2.3 from tarball (Debian testing provides only 3.2.1) 
  ^^^
I wrote "volatile", not "testing". See http://packages.debian.org/spamassassin 
and http://volatile.debian.org/.

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted,
then used against you. 

Re: sa-learn and max. message size

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

On 18.11.07 15:14, IT Systems Chemnitz wrote:
> I'm looking for an option to limit the file size, sa-learn is learning 
> from. I don't use spamd, so I cannot use spamc. When learning with 
> sa-learn, it accepts a file or a dir as source. The problem is, when 
> there is a message with a size about 3 or 4 MB, the bayes_toks DB grows 
> and grows and grows sometimes 10 or 20 MB, so older tokens are lost by 
> expire. Where can I tell sa-learn, that if a file or a file in a dir is 
> greater than x MB, that this file is passed without learning?

I think that maximal size of message parsed by SA is hardcoded at 256K.
I think that applies for reporting as well as for checking
-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe.