Re: Masscheck statistics
I've already moved over to using my personal gmail. Sadly I don't have control over my corporate email account and the signature keep reappearing. On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 21:28, @lbutlr wrote: > This garbafge is inappropriate for a mailing list. It is also enforceable > BS (I use to post ever email with this kind of garbage to a public website) > > On 15 May 2019, at 10:55, Paul Stead wrote: > > This message is private and confidential. If you have received this > message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system. > > > > Zen Internet Limited may monitor email traffic data to manage billing, > to handle customer enquiries and for the prevention and detection of fraud. > We may also monitor the content of emails sent to and/or from Zen Internet > Limited for the purposes of security, staff training and to monitor quality > of service. > > > > Zen Internet Limited is registered in England and Wales, Sandbrook Park, > Sandbrook Way, Rochdale, OL11 1RY Company No. 03101568 VAT Reg No. 686 0495 > 01 > >
Re: Masscheck statistics
This garbafge is inappropriate for a mailing list. It is also enforceable BS (I use to post ever email with this kind of garbage to a public website) On 15 May 2019, at 10:55, Paul Stead wrote: > This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message > in error, please notify us and remove it from your system. > > Zen Internet Limited may monitor email traffic data to manage billing, to > handle customer enquiries and for the prevention and detection of fraud. We > may also monitor the content of emails sent to and/or from Zen Internet > Limited for the purposes of security, staff training and to monitor quality > of service. > > Zen Internet Limited is registered in England and Wales, Sandbrook Park, > Sandbrook Way, Rochdale, OL11 1RY Company No. 03101568 VAT Reg No. 686 0495 01
Re: Masscheck statistics
On 15/05/2019, 16:19, "RW" wrote: That's my point. It leaves little incentive to distinguish between network and non-network runs. Good point... I don't know the QA scripts well enough to be able to comment more. It does look like the net contributions during the week from jarif are influencing the scores during the week, when no one else is submitting net scores Paul -- Paul Stead Senior Engineer Zen Internet Direct: 01706 902018 Web: zen.co.uk Winner of 'Services Company of the Year' at the UK IT Industry Awards This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system. Zen Internet Limited may monitor email traffic data to manage billing, to handle customer enquiries and for the prevention and detection of fraud. We may also monitor the content of emails sent to and/or from Zen Internet Limited for the purposes of security, staff training and to monitor quality of service. Zen Internet Limited is registered in England and Wales, Sandbrook Park, Sandbrook Way, Rochdale, OL11 1RY Company No. 03101568 VAT Reg No. 686 0495 01
Re: T_SPF_PERMERROR in logs.
On 5/15/2019 11:47 AM, Bill Cole wrote: >> Does anyone know what or where this is coming from? > > As RW noted, that is a state that occurs when a SPF record exists but > it cannot be properly interpreted. This most commonly has one of two > root causes: > > 1. A typo in the SPF record that makes it syntactically invalid. > > 2. Excess complexity in a SPF record that results in a need to do more > than 10 DNS queries to resolve the fully-expanded record. >From memory, I think we acknowledge the RFC limit but we actually dive to 20 due to the significant real-world issue a limit of 10 causes. -- Kevin A. McGrail Member, Apache Software Foundation Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: spamd logging
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 4:29 PM Lucio wrote: > Is there any configuration to have spamd log a particular message > header long with the other informations it usually logs? > I've not seen that mentioned by anybody, but, you can always write a filter that sits immediately downstream of spamc and logs the header(s) you want to capture. It can use headers added by spamd to select which messages should be inspected for the headers you want to log. The filter can be written your preferred language (awk, perl, c, ...). I'd probably use awk for something like this because it uses compact, regex-based scripts. Martin
Re: T_SPF_PERMERROR in logs.
On 15 May 2019, at 7:58, Brent Clark wrote: Good day Guys Im seeing T_SPF_PERMERROR in my logs. For what domain? Does anyone know what or where this is coming from? As RW noted, that is a state that occurs when a SPF record exists but it cannot be properly interpreted. This most commonly has one of two root causes: 1. A typo in the SPF record that makes it syntactically invalid. 2. Excess complexity in a SPF record that results in a need to do more than 10 DNS queries to resolve the fully-expanded record.
Re: Masscheck statistics
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 04:14:30PM +0100, RW wrote: > > > I think the concept of scoresets is pointless these days anyway. Does > > someone actually run legit mailserver without bayes and network tests? > > But if you do that you are running a score set that has been optimized > for only network tests. Not sure if it's that pointless theorizing or not, scores are pretty arbitrary anyway and on the mercy of current contributors that happen to be submitting on a given day. One should analyze and adjust scores locally always for things to work optimally.
Re: [mailop] openspf.org down - T_SPF_PERMERROR
On 15 May 2019, at 8:02, Brent Clark wrote: Just after I sent the T_SPF_PERMERROR the following came in my inbox. TLDR; openspf.org is down Those are entirely unrelated. openspf.org has been down for months, and it was only an informational resource, NOT an operational one in any way. HTH Regards Brent Forwarded Message Subject: Re: [mailop] openspf.org down Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 13:13:30 +0200 From: Lilium via mailop Reply-To: Lilium To: mai...@mailop.org Hello, this is a static version taken from web-archive: http://www.open-spf.org/ source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190225203208/http://www.openspf.org/ Regards Andrea ___ mailop mailing list mai...@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Running HitFreqsRuleTiming with masscheck
Hi, I have been trying to get the HitFreqsRuleTiming plugin working with masscheck. Do you know if HitFreqsRuleTiming is fully supported for masscheck? I added the following line to init.pre. loadplugin HitFreqsRuleTiming /opt/spamassassin/masses/plugins/HitFreqsRuleTiming.pm When running spamassassin the timing results are reported correctly for the batch it was executed against. e.g. The overall runtime, max runtime and Total Spam tested are reported correctly. T __FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT2 13.91460.4052 1200 T __FILL_THIS_FORM_LONG2 13.40780.3957 1200 However when I run masscheck, the HitFreqsRuleTiming only seems to run for the last email that was processed. This is a example of the results e.g. T RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_1001.20331.20331 T PYZOR_CHECK0.54190.54191 T T_SPF_PERMERROR0.02340.02341 T DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED0.01660.01661 T__FILL_THIS_FORM_LONG20.00520.00521 T __FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT20.00510.00511 If HitFreqsRuleTiming is supported with masscheck, then do you know how I can get the full timings of rules during a masscheck run? Thanks & Regards, Paul
Re: spamd logging
Even I am new, check if this works.
Go to /etc/default/spamassassin and change the following,
OPTIONS="--create-prefs --max-children 2 --username spamd \-H ${SAHOME} -s
${SAHOME}spamd.log"
(This specifies the username Spamassassin will run under as spamd, as well
as add the home directory, create the log file, and limit the child
processes that Spamassassin can run.)
To add a header to every mail,
Go to /etc/spamassassin/local.cf and uncomment the line "rewrite_header
Subject [* SPAM_SCORE_ *]"
Regards,
Shreyansh Shrivastava
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 4:29 PM Lucio wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm new here but I've been using SA for quite a few years. I'm using SA
> 3.4.2 as packaged by Debian.
>
> Is there any configuration to have spamd log a particular message header
> along with the other informations it usually logs?
>
Re: Masscheck statistics
On Wed, 15 May 2019 14:59:18 + Paul Stead wrote: > On 15/05/2019, 15:45, "RW" wrote: > > > > >Network rules are only run every saturday: > >https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20190511-r1859108-n > > Why is that necessary when network results should be reused? Most > of them are meaningless if retested after several days. > > > That's the reason for the --reuse flag on masscheck That's my point. It leaves little incentive to distinguish between network and non-network runs.
Re: Masscheck statistics
On Wed, 15 May 2019 17:51:54 +0300 Henrik K wrote: > > That not the point. Without taking account of Bayes, the other rules > > get tuned differently. Bayes has a substantial effect on the score > > of almost everything scanned. > > I think the concept of scoresets is pointless these days anyway. Does > someone actually run legit mailserver without bayes and network tests? But if you do that you are running a score set that has been optimized for only network tests.
Re: Masscheck statistics
On 15/05/2019, 15:45, "RW" wrote: > >Network rules are only run every saturday: >https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20190511-r1859108-n Why is that necessary when network results should be reused? Most of them are meaningless if retested after several days. That's the reason for the --reuse flag on masscheck Paul -- Paul Stead Senior Engineer Zen Internet Direct: 01706 902018 Web: zen.co.uk Winner of 'Services Company of the Year' at the UK IT Industry Awards This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system. Zen Internet Limited may monitor email traffic data to manage billing, to handle customer enquiries and for the prevention and detection of fraud. We may also monitor the content of emails sent to and/or from Zen Internet Limited for the purposes of security, staff training and to monitor quality of service. Zen Internet Limited is registered in England and Wales, Sandbrook Park, Sandbrook Way, Rochdale, OL11 1RY Company No. 03101568 VAT Reg No. 686 0495 01
Re: Masscheck statistics
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:45:22PM +0100, RW wrote: > On Wed, 15 May 2019 16:41:00 +0300 > Henrik K wrote: > > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 02:15:19PM +0100, RW wrote: > > > > > > Why are there no QA statistics for BAYES_* rules? > > > > How do you propose to generate such statistics, when all contributors > > already are supposed to have fully sorted ham/spam corpuses? Seems > > kind of redundant as all spam would hit BAYES_99 etc. > > The correct way to do this is to divide the corpus into N parts and > test each part with a database trained from the other N-1, but simply > starting with a fresh database and testing each email before training it > is much better then nothing. I'm sure all the contributors would be happy to run 10-fold bayes tests all day and night. :-) > > What comes to BAYES_* scores anyway, they are hand tweaked / > > immutable and not subject to rescoring. > > That not the point. Without taking account of Bayes, the other rules > get tuned differently. Bayes has a substantial effect on the score of > almost everything scanned. I think the concept of scoresets is pointless these days anyway. Does someone actually run legit mailserver without bayes and network tests? > > Network rules are only run every saturday: > > https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20190511-r1859108-n > > Why is that necessary when network results should be reused? Most of > them are meaningless if retested after several days. It's a known thing and already discussed internally, not a thing for users list.
Re: Masscheck statistics
On Wed, 15 May 2019 16:41:00 +0300 Henrik K wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 02:15:19PM +0100, RW wrote: > > > > Why are there no QA statistics for BAYES_* rules? > > How do you propose to generate such statistics, when all contributors > already are supposed to have fully sorted ham/spam corpuses? Seems > kind of redundant as all spam would hit BAYES_99 etc. The correct way to do this is to divide the corpus into N parts and test each part with a database trained from the other N-1, but simply starting with a fresh database and testing each email before training it is much better then nothing. > What comes to BAYES_* scores anyway, they are hand tweaked / > immutable and not subject to rescoring. That not the point. Without taking account of Bayes, the other rules get tuned differently. Bayes has a substantial effect on the score of almost everything scanned. I presume this did all work correctly in the past as the optimizer produced scores like this: score DRUGS_MANYKINDS 2.001 1.473 0.841 0.342 It's very common in 50_scores.cf to see much more aggressive scores on the non-Bayes score sets. > Network rules are only run every saturday: > https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20190511-r1859108-n Why is that necessary when network results should be reused? Most of them are meaningless if retested after several days.
Re: Masscheck statistics
I noticed the jarif ruleset contributing net scores during nightlies a few weeks ago - I've asked jarif about this but couldn't see an immediate problem/solution. I've also raised a potential issue on the ruleqa RE some potential problems. On 15/05/2019, 14:16, "RW" wrote: Also why do all the network rule statistics come from a single contributor labelled 'jarif'? A corpus with only 484 ham in it. If this is genuinely what is being contributed, how is it possible to generate all four score sets? -- Paul Stead Senior Engineer Zen Internet Direct: 01706 902018 Web: zen.co.uk Winner of 'Services Company of the Year' at the UK IT Industry Awards This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system. Zen Internet Limited may monitor email traffic data to manage billing, to handle customer enquiries and for the prevention and detection of fraud. We may also monitor the content of emails sent to and/or from Zen Internet Limited for the purposes of security, staff training and to monitor quality of service. Zen Internet Limited is registered in England and Wales, Sandbrook Park, Sandbrook Way, Rochdale, OL11 1RY Company No. 03101568 VAT Reg No. 686 0495 01
Re: Masscheck statistics
On 15/05/2019, 14:41, "Henrik K" wrote: jarif has some flags wrong if doing it every day.. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ff734261cb1d8ec9dea9df42f314a60ec20c1919b8bd21c71b38553f@%3Cruleqa.spamassassin.apache.org%3E -- Paul Stead Senior Engineer Zen Internet Direct: 01706 902018 Web: zen.co.uk Winner of 'Services Company of the Year' at the UK IT Industry Awards This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system. Zen Internet Limited may monitor email traffic data to manage billing, to handle customer enquiries and for the prevention and detection of fraud. We may also monitor the content of emails sent to and/or from Zen Internet Limited for the purposes of security, staff training and to monitor quality of service. Zen Internet Limited is registered in England and Wales, Sandbrook Park, Sandbrook Way, Rochdale, OL11 1RY Company No. 03101568 VAT Reg No. 686 0495 01
Re: Masscheck statistics
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 02:15:19PM +0100, RW wrote: > > Why are there no QA statistics for BAYES_* rules? How do you propose to generate such statistics, when all contributors already are supposed to have fully sorted ham/spam corpuses? Seems kind of redundant as all spam would hit BAYES_99 etc. What comes to BAYES_* scores anyway, they are hand tweaked / immutable and not subject to rescoring. # make the Bayes scores unmutable (as discussed in bug 4505) https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4505 > Also why do all the network rule statistics come from a single > contributor labelled 'jarif'? A corpus with only 484 ham in it. Network rules are only run every saturday: https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20190511-r1859108-n jarif has some flags wrong if doing it every day..
Masscheck statistics
Why are there no QA statistics for BAYES_* rules? Also why do all the network rule statistics come from a single contributor labelled 'jarif'? A corpus with only 484 ham in it. If this is genuinely what is being contributed, how is it possible to generate all four score sets?
Re: T_SPF_PERMERROR in logs.
On Wed, 15 May 2019 13:58:43 +0200 Brent Clark wrote: > Good day Guys > > Im seeing T_SPF_PERMERROR in my logs. > > Does anyone know what or where this is coming from? From rfc 7208: 2.6.7. Permerror A "permerror" result means the domain's published records could not be correctly interpreted. This signals an error condition that definitely requires DNS operator intervention to be resolved.
Fwd: Re: [mailop] openspf.org down - T_SPF_PERMERROR
Just after I sent the T_SPF_PERMERROR the following came in my inbox. TLDR; openspf.org is down HTH Regards Brent Forwarded Message Subject: Re: [mailop] openspf.org down Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 13:13:30 +0200 From: Lilium via mailop Reply-To: Lilium To: mai...@mailop.org Hello, this is a static version taken from web-archive: http://www.open-spf.org/ source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190225203208/http://www.openspf.org/ Regards Andrea ___ mailop mailing list mai...@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
T_SPF_PERMERROR in logs.
Good day Guys Im seeing T_SPF_PERMERROR in my logs. Does anyone know what or where this is coming from? Regards Brent Clark
spamd logging
Hello, I'm new here but I've been using SA for quite a few years. I'm using SA 3.4.2 as packaged by Debian. Is there any configuration to have spamd log a particular message header along with the other informations it usually logs?
