Re: ancient perl versions
I cant see what the fuss is about, using gmail, your text is all about
the same size, except when Noel says he changed to 12pt, then it looks
larger than everyone else's, including jdow's.
I think it comes down to what client you're using, and its fine by my
reckoning, and it also word wraps fine here, if I was him I wouldnt
bother changing a thing.
On 12/8/14, Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net wrote:
Eh? I'm not young, unfortunately, although I'll take it as a compliment.
I don't really care if Noel uses Roundcube or not, but it was irritating
when he was asserting a few days ago that it wasn't his MUA's problem
when it clearly WAS his MUA's problem.
After several others chimed in telling him that yes, they were seeing
the same thing, I see he has finally accepted it.
Please note that I didn't start this one either, I was NOT the first one
to point out the legibility issues. Others did, were told it was their
problem. I don't like innocents being blamed, and I'm quite sure if
most people were in a car accident where the other driver was 100% at
fault, they would not stand for accepting blame either.
If that's impolite, I'm not sure what the definition of polite is - is
it paying for the car accident you didn't cause? Just asking.
Ted
On 12/5/2014 12:24 PM, jdow wrote:
Charmingly polite again, eh Ted? Surely you can do better, young man.
{+_+}
On 2014-12-05 01:46, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The problem is Roundcube. It does not insert soft line breaks
as per the MIME Quoted-Printable encoding. There's a lot of
MIME stuff that Roundcube doesn't do very well, it's just not a very
good web
mail interface. I'm always surprised at how vehemently
people defend it.
Many email clients can be set to automatically wrap received text.
Including the
one I'm using now. But I don't turn that feature on because I want to
give the
SENDER of the message control over text positioning. I feel that if
the sender
has laid out their email a particular way, they have a reason for it.
ASCII with a fixed font like Courier has always been the standard for
email, and
you can do stuff like this with it:
-- --- \
| Network router |---| NID |---
-- --- /
Which is far, far quicker and more efficient than attaching some visio
drawing
that I probably don't have a viewer for loaded on whatever system I'm
using.
And I won't even get into indentation of code in Email messages.
As such, senders who are clever and careful and make use of fixed
width fonts
and ASCII text can do a heck of a lot quicker communicating and more
understandable than a bunch of HTMLized stuff using a proportional
spaced font
that munges drawings, and destroys indentation, and such people have a
damn good
reason at times to send out text that is soft broken at specific
places. So if
I turn on Word Wrap like Android does I have just succeeded in
shooting myself
in the foot when I get an email from the smart people. So I assume the
sender
knows what they are doing and do I don't try to second guess them by
wrapping
their stuff.
If you want to send out email that looks like it's been beaten by an
ugly stick
with weird looking fonts and lines that run on forever and ever, with
no thought
to positioning and making it look readable, as far as I'm concerned,
that's not
a reflection on me, it's a reflection on you. I'm not going to change
my config
to clean up your email, particularly when your the only one doing it,
no more
than I would waste time tucking in the shirt and straightening the tie
and
shining the shoes of a salesguy who showed up to sell me something.
It's also not really my job to explain the concept of the blind
leading the
blind and relate that to the fact that nobody else has ever yadda
yadda yadda
but I'll do it anyway - it wasn't too long ago when the vast majority
of people
thought the world was flat, but that merely meant that the vast
majority of
people were ignorant - just like the vast majority of people who have
never
brought it up to you before are just as ignorant of line wrapping.
After all,
it is an esoteric subject.
Ted
On 12/4/2014 10:20 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 05/12/2014 14:40, Dave Pooser wrote:
On 12/4/14 10:27 PM, Nick Edwardsnick.z.edwa...@gmail.com
mailto:nick.z.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
It's also not wrapping the text at all.
it wraps fine here
Look at the last roundcube post, the one sent at 01:06 GMT. The line
of
quoted text runs 273 columns without a linewrap.
What client are you using?
roundcube - wraps
Evolution - wraps
the font size btw is identical to yours on both.
only two I use for this a/c
forwarded that message in question to my private address, and checked
it
in android tablet and phone, both wrap.
since no one has ever brought this up with me before, I'm placing this
as not my problem to resolve.
Re: ancient perl versions
Nick,
BOTH Noel and I have agreed that it is NOT the client. You can think it
comes down to what client someone uses all you want. That isn't going
to make it true.
You obviously haven't read the explanation very carefully.
Ted
On 12/8/2014 2:26 AM, Nick Edwards wrote:
I cant see what the fuss is about, using gmail, your text is all about
the same size, except when Noel says he changed to 12pt, then it looks
larger than everyone else's, including jdow's.
I think it comes down to what client you're using, and its fine by my
reckoning, and it also word wraps fine here, if I was him I wouldnt
bother changing a thing.
On 12/8/14, Ted Mittelstaedtt...@ipinc.net wrote:
Eh? I'm not young, unfortunately, although I'll take it as a compliment.
I don't really care if Noel uses Roundcube or not, but it was irritating
when he was asserting a few days ago that it wasn't his MUA's problem
when it clearly WAS his MUA's problem.
After several others chimed in telling him that yes, they were seeing
the same thing, I see he has finally accepted it.
Please note that I didn't start this one either, I was NOT the first one
to point out the legibility issues. Others did, were told it was their
problem. I don't like innocents being blamed, and I'm quite sure if
most people were in a car accident where the other driver was 100% at
fault, they would not stand for accepting blame either.
If that's impolite, I'm not sure what the definition of polite is - is
it paying for the car accident you didn't cause? Just asking.
Ted
On 12/5/2014 12:24 PM, jdow wrote:
Charmingly polite again, eh Ted? Surely you can do better, young man.
{+_+}
On 2014-12-05 01:46, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The problem is Roundcube. It does not insert soft line breaks
as per the MIME Quoted-Printable encoding. There's a lot of
MIME stuff that Roundcube doesn't do very well, it's just not a very
good web
mail interface. I'm always surprised at how vehemently
people defend it.
Many email clients can be set to automatically wrap received text.
Including the
one I'm using now. But I don't turn that feature on because I want to
give the
SENDER of the message control over text positioning. I feel that if
the sender
has laid out their email a particular way, they have a reason for it.
ASCII with a fixed font like Courier has always been the standard for
email, and
you can do stuff like this with it:
-- --- \
| Network router |---| NID |---
-- --- /
Which is far, far quicker and more efficient than attaching some visio
drawing
that I probably don't have a viewer for loaded on whatever system I'm
using.
And I won't even get into indentation of code in Email messages.
As such, senders who are clever and careful and make use of fixed
width fonts
and ASCII text can do a heck of a lot quicker communicating and more
understandable than a bunch of HTMLized stuff using a proportional
spaced font
that munges drawings, and destroys indentation, and such people have a
damn good
reason at times to send out text that is soft broken at specific
places. So if
I turn on Word Wrap like Android does I have just succeeded in
shooting myself
in the foot when I get an email from the smart people. So I assume the
sender
knows what they are doing and do I don't try to second guess them by
wrapping
their stuff.
If you want to send out email that looks like it's been beaten by an
ugly stick
with weird looking fonts and lines that run on forever and ever, with
no thought
to positioning and making it look readable, as far as I'm concerned,
that's not
a reflection on me, it's a reflection on you. I'm not going to change
my config
to clean up your email, particularly when your the only one doing it,
no more
than I would waste time tucking in the shirt and straightening the tie
and
shining the shoes of a salesguy who showed up to sell me something.
It's also not really my job to explain the concept of the blind
leading the
blind and relate that to the fact that nobody else has ever yadda
yadda yadda
but I'll do it anyway - it wasn't too long ago when the vast majority
of people
thought the world was flat, but that merely meant that the vast
majority of
people were ignorant - just like the vast majority of people who have
never
brought it up to you before are just as ignorant of line wrapping.
After all,
it is an esoteric subject.
Ted
On 12/4/2014 10:20 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 05/12/2014 14:40, Dave Pooser wrote:
On 12/4/14 10:27 PM, Nick Edwardsnick.z.edwa...@gmail.com
mailto:nick.z.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
It's also not wrapping the text at all.
it wraps fine here
Look at the last roundcube post, the one sent at 01:06 GMT. The line
of
quoted text runs 273 columns without a linewrap.
What client are you using?
roundcube - wraps
Evolution - wraps
the font size btw is identical to yours on both.
only two I use for this a/c
forwarded that message in question to my private address, and checked
it
in
Re: different results when using --debug
i hope it's not too soon to ask about this again. i'm not quite sure how to debug something like this when when it's --debug that is what behaves differently :) i've put the commands and output into a pastebin this time. On 2014.12.03 05.45, Mark Martinec wrote: listsb-spamassas...@bitrate.net wrote: i was testing with a sample message, and noticed that when running manually with --debug, there seem to be numerous differences in the results, such as scores for the same tests differing, visual ordering of results differing [is this significant?], and bayes not being listed when using --debug. am i doing something wrong? are my expectations misguided? i'm doing these tests as the user named amavis, which the amavis software runs as. spamassassin --test-mode --debug message3.txt 1.6 RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT RBL: No description available. [...] spamassassin --test-mode message3.txt 1.4 RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT RBL: No description available. [94.73.46.5 listed in bb.barracudacentral.org] -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.] Apparently in the first case a score set 1 was chosen, and in the second case a score set 3. Availability of a bayes scanner choses between the two. i'm ignorant here - what is a score set? is there documentation i can read up on? Could it be that you have a fresh bayes database which had less than 200 spam and 200 ham entries in the first attempt, but became populated and functional by the time of the second attempt? i don't believe so - here's another exercise, with bayes info before and after each test. http://dpaste.com/3XFVPJT.txt
Re: different results when using --debug
On 12/8/2014 9:28 AM, btb wrote: Apparently in the first case a score set 1 was chosen, and in the second case a score set 3. Availability of a bayes scanner choses between the two. i'm ignorant here - what is a score set? is there documentation i can read up on? The term score set refers to this: https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WritingRules#Advanced_Scoring https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.1.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html#scoring_options The score sets are zero-indexed, so score sets 1 and 3 are when network tests are used, but Bayes may or may not.
Re: different results when using --debug
btb wrote: i hope it's not too soon to ask about this again. i'm not quite sure how to debug something like this when when it's --debug that is what behaves differently :) i've put the commands and output into a pastebin this time. Possibly this PR is related: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7110 Mark
Re: different results when using --debug
btb wrote: i hope it's not too soon to ask about this again. i'm not quite sure how to debug something like this when when it's --debug that is what behaves differently :) i've put the commands and output into a pastebin this time. Please show the debug output from: spamassassin --test-mode --debug bayes message3.txt (or paste the full debug from: spamassassin --test-mode --debug message3.txt ) Somehow in the debug case the use of bayes is disabled. Mark
Re: different results when using --debug
On 2014.12.08 10.13, Mark Martinec wrote: btb wrote: i hope it's not too soon to ask about this again. i'm not quite sure how to debug something like this when when it's --debug that is what behaves differently :) i've put the commands and output into a pastebin this time. Please show the debug output from: spamassassin --test-mode --debug bayes message3.txt http://dpaste.com/3N49S6P.txt (or paste the full debug from: spamassassin --test-mode --debug message3.txt http://dpaste.com/3189XPC.txt i did both just in case. -ben
Re: different results when using --debug
Ben wrote:
On 2014.12.08 10.13, Mark Martinec wrote:
btb wrote:
i hope it's not too soon to ask about this again. i'm not quite sure
how to debug something like this when when it's --debug that is what
behaves differently :) i've put the commands and output into a
pastebin this time.
Please show the debug output from:
spamassassin --test-mode --debug bayes message3.txt
http://dpaste.com/3N49S6P.txt
(or paste the full debug from:
spamassassin --test-mode --debug message3.txt
http://dpaste.com/3189XPC.txt
i did both just in case.
-ben
Great, thanks!
Does the following patch help?
--- lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore/DBM.pm (revision 1643879)
+++ lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore/DBM.pm (working copy)
@@ -1348,7 +1348,7 @@
if ($opts-{verbose}) {
print $msg,\n;
} else {
- dbg($msg);
+ dbg(%s, $msg);
}
}
Mark
Re: different results when using --debug
On 2014.12.08 13.44, Mark Martinec wrote:
Ben wrote:
On 2014.12.08 10.13, Mark Martinec wrote:
btb wrote:
i hope it's not too soon to ask about this again. i'm not quite sure
how to debug something like this when when it's --debug that is what
behaves differently :) i've put the commands and output into a
pastebin this time.
Please show the debug output from:
spamassassin --test-mode --debug bayes message3.txt
http://dpaste.com/3N49S6P.txt
(or paste the full debug from:
spamassassin --test-mode --debug message3.txt
http://dpaste.com/3189XPC.txt
i did both just in case.
-ben
Great, thanks!
Does the following patch help?
--- lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore/DBM.pm (revision 1643879)
+++ lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore/DBM.pm (working copy)
@@ -1348,7 +1348,7 @@
if ($opts-{verbose}) {
print $msg,\n;
} else {
- dbg($msg);
+ dbg(%s, $msg);
}
}
it doesn't appear to have made a difference. however, i am using
version 3.4.0, not revision 1643879. is that a prerequisite for this
particular patch?
have i applied the patch properly?:
sed -n '1346,1352p' /usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore/DBM.pm
if ($opts-{verbose}) {
print $msg,\n;
} else {
#dbg($msg);
dbg(%s, $msg);
}
}
-ben
Re: different results when using --debug
Does the following patch help?
--- lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore/DBM.pm (revision 1643879)
+++ lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore/DBM.pm (working copy)
@@ -1348,7 +1348,7 @@
if ($opts-{verbose}) {
print $msg,\n;
} else {
- dbg($msg);
+ dbg(%s, $msg);
}
}
Ben wrote:
it doesn't appear to have made a difference. however, i am using
version 3.4.0, not revision 1643879. is that a prerequisite for this
particular patch?
Thanks for testing.
have i applied the patch properly?:
[...]
#dbg($msg);
dbg(%s, $msg);
Yes, correctly.
Actually, looking at a diff of DBM.pm between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1
I can see the taint bug has already been fixed by r1608413:
@@ -814,3 +816,3 @@
my @vars = $self-get_storage_variables();
- dbg(bayes: DB journal sync: last sync: .$vars[7],'bayes','-1');
+ dbg(bayes: DB journal sync: last sync: %s, $vars[7]);
The extra parameters shouldn't have been in that dbg call.
See:
Bug 7065 - Debug Mode breaks Bayes but only if DBM storage is used
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7065
My today's patch can't hurt, it avoids a potential trouble,
but as it happens it may not necessary.
Mark
Re: different results when using --debug
On Dec 08, 2014, at 19.28, Mark Martinec mark.martinec...@ijs.si wrote: Actually, looking at a diff of DBM.pm between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1 I can see the taint bug has already been fixed by r1608413: @@ -814,3 +816,3 @@ my @vars = $self-get_storage_variables(); - dbg(bayes: DB journal sync: last sync: .$vars[7],'bayes','-1'); + dbg(bayes: DB journal sync: last sync: %s, $vars[7]); The extra parameters shouldn't have been in that dbg call. See: Bug 7065 - Debug Mode breaks Bayes but only if DBM storage is used https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7065 i've manually grafted that patch onto my 3.4.0, and it seems to do the trick, thanks. i now see bayes results [and more consistent results overall] when using --debug. there is still a slight variation in scoring, however: without --debug: Content analysis details: (19.6 points, 5.0 required) [...] -3.8 AWLAWL: adjust score towards average for this sender with --debug: Content analysis details: (19.5 points, 5.0 required) [...] -3.7 AWLAWL: adjust score towards average for this sender all other scoring is consistent. it's a trivial variation in this instance, but does it mean something additional may not be working as intended? or just something else i need to learn? -ben
Re: ancient perl versions
We did? I agree RC has its problems, but if half the tested clients, plus gmail show it normally, the problem then lies on both sides, since as my tests how, its not a problem for any clinet I have locally, nor with the people I regularly converse with anyway, and THAT is all that matters to me. I often see people send in some extra large and extra small font sizes, it doesnt bother me, if my eyes cant read it, I ignore it, its the simplest method :) I think this thread has been done to death anyway On 08/12/2014 23:48, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Nick, BOTH Noel and I have agreed that it is NOT the client. You can think it comes down to what client someone uses all you want. That isn't going to make it true. You obviously haven't read the explanation very carefully. Ted
