Spamc, spamassassin, different scores
Hello, my system is a redhat 7.3 with this spamassassin versions and i am using qmail in it. machine:/etc/mail/spamassassin# spamassassin -V SpamAssassin version 3.0.1 running on Perl version 5.6.1 machine:/etc/mail/spamassassin# spamc -V SpamAssassin Client version 3.0.1 The problem that i have is that i only want to launch spamassassin in my account so i am using my .qmail-file to do it. | spamassassin | preline procmail -t -m -p ./skuda/procmailrc I know that i would be launching spamc and not spamassassin perl script but i get different scores from the 2 programs. SPAMC: spamc -r skuda/Maildir/.spam/cur/1121844030.M156489P30796V0303I00436361_2015.betanetweb.com,S=9921:2,S Spam detection software, running on the system betanetweb.com, has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: neuroanotomy Incredible Prices on Rx Hurry While Supplies Last! [...] Content analysis details: (7.3 points, 4.0 required) pts rule name description -- -- 1.5 MPART_ALT_DIFF BODY: HTML and text parts are different 0.3 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY BODY: Multipart message mostly text/html MIME 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.2 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML tag for a big font size 0.2 HTML_90_100BODY: Message is 90% to 100% HTML 1.1 NO_DNS_FOR_FROMDNS: Envelope sender has no MX or A DNS records 0.1 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBLRBL: From: sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org 3.9 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist [URIs: weofferaselection.com] 0.5 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist [URIs: weofferaselection.com] -0.6 AWLAWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Spamassassin: spamassassin cur/1121844030.M156489P30796V0303I00436361_2015.betanetweb.com,S=9921:2,S From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 12 12:53:26 2004 Received: from localhost by betanetweb.com with SpamAssassin (version 3.0.1); Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:24:08 +0200 From: VicoRx 6 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: *SPAM* Your order Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:50:35 -0500 (MSD) Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on betanetweb.com X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=11.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_95, DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL,HTML_90_100,HTML_FONT_BIG,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02, HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_MOSTLY,MPART_ALT_DIFF,NO_DNS_FOR_FROM, URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Level: ** MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=--=_431DA688.5E031C81 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. =_431DA688.5E031C81 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Spam detection software, running on the system betanetweb.com, has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: neuroanotomy Incredible Prices on Rx Hurry While Supplies Last! [...] Content analysis details: (11.0 points, 4.0 required) pts rule name description -- -- 0.1 MPART_ALT_DIFF BODY: HTML and text parts are different 2.1 BAYES_95 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 95 to 99% [score: 0.9714] 0.0 HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02BODY: HTML has a low ratio of text to image area 1.0 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY BODY: Multipart message mostly text/html MIME 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML tag for a big font size 0.0 HTML_90_100BODY: Message is 90% to 100% HTML 1.6 NO_DNS_FOR_FROMDNS: Envelope sender has no MX or A DNS records 0.3 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBLRBL: From: sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org 4.3 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist [URIs: weofferaselection.com] 1.5 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist [URIs: weofferaselection.com] The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.
Re: Spamc, spamassassin, different scores
Miguel Angel Rasero Peral (TCOR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/06/2005 10:19:29 AM: Hello, my system is a redhat 7.3 with this spamassassin versions and i am using qmail in it. machine:/etc/mail/spamassassin# spamassassin -V SpamAssassin version 3.0.1 running on Perl version 5.6.1 machine:/etc/mail/spamassassin# spamc -V SpamAssassin Client version 3.0.1 The problem that i have is that i only want to launch spamassassin in my account so i am using my .qmail-file to do it. | spamassassin | preline procmail -t -m -p ./skuda/procmailrc I know that i would be launching spamc and not spamassassin perl script but i get different scores from the 2 programs. Are you running the spamassassin command under the same userid as spamd is running under? Looks like spamd is using bayes that spamassassin did not have, and spamassassin had a negative AWL score that spamd didn't have. Andy
Re: Spamc, spamassassin, different scores
Miguel Angel Rasero Peral (TCOR) wrote:
Hello, my system is a redhat 7.3 with this spamassassin versions and i
am using qmail in it.
The problem that i have is that i only want to launch spamassassin in my
account so i am using my .qmail-file to do it.
| spamassassin | preline procmail -t -m -p ./skuda/procmailrc
I know that i would be launching spamc and not spamassassin perl script
but i get different scores from the 2 programs.
I have this in my .qmail file
| /usr/bin/procmail ~/.procmailrc
and then in .procmailrc I first sort out all my mailing lists by
matching headers and then call spamc and then dump high scores 14 to
/dev/null and 5 - 14 to a Junk mail folder.
#
# put satalk in it's own folder
#
:0 H:
* ^List-Id:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
satalk/new
# ---
# run thru spamassassin
# ---
:0fw
| spamc
# ---
# catch high scores
# ---
:0 H:
* ^X-Spam-Status: +(yes|no), +score=\/[^. ]*
* ? (( ${MATCH} 14 ))
/dev/null
# ---
# put the rest in Junk folder
# ---
:0 H:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes.*
Junk/new
I get the same score with spamc and spamassassin - different scores
would indicate that you aren't running thru the same rulesets or bayes.
Content analysis details: (7.3 points, 4.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
1.5 MPART_ALT_DIFF BODY: HTML and text parts are different
0.3 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY BODY: Multipart message mostly text/html
MIME
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.2 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML tag for a big font size
0.2 HTML_90_100BODY: Message is 90% to 100% HTML
1.1 NO_DNS_FOR_FROMDNS: Envelope sender has no MX or A DNS
records
0.1 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBLRBL: From: sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org
3.9 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL
blocklist
[URIs: weofferaselection.com]
0.5 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL
blocklist
[URIs: weofferaselection.com]
-0.6 AWLAWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
Content analysis details: (11.0 points, 4.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
0.1 MPART_ALT_DIFF BODY: HTML and text parts are different
2.1 BAYES_95 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 95 to 99%
[score: 0.9714]
0.0 HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02BODY: HTML has a low ratio of text to image
area
1.0 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY BODY: Multipart message mostly text/html
MIME
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML tag for a big font size
0.0 HTML_90_100BODY: Message is 90% to 100% HTML
1.6 NO_DNS_FOR_FROMDNS: Envelope sender has no MX or A DNS
records
0.3 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBLRBL: From: sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org
4.3 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL
blocklist
[URIs: weofferaselection.com]
1.5 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL
blocklist
[URIs: weofferaselection.com]
I dont know what happening, on other side i have any times that email
get my inbox without be analyzed because i cant see in his code the
spamassassin headers i suppose that its because any timeout or by the
way i use in .qmail file to call spamassassin, anyone can help me
please?
Re: Spamc, spamassassin, different scores
Andy Jezierski wrote: Are you running the spamassassin command under the same userid as spamd is running under? Looks like spamd is using bayes that spamassassin did not have, and spamassassin had a negative AWL score that spamd didn't have. Definitely not. Look at the prompts. Miguel is running spamassassin as root. Miguel is running spamc as root, but spamd will *NEVER* scan mail as root. It will setuid itself to nobody if it finds this situation. This causes a huge difference, because only the root account has bayes training, but spamd will never use it. Notice that the spamassassin (run as root) version has BAYES_95 matching, but the spamc one does not. Miguel, this is your problem: you can't train with sa-learn as root and expect this to impact mail run through spamc, unless you set up a global bayes database. Ideally, I'd suggest creating a spamd user, and running spamd with -u spamd. Then when you train mail with sa-learn, just su yourself to spamd first. This way everything all gets scanned using the same bayes db. You also get the security benefit of all scanning being done as a user that isn't used for anything else. If that's not practical, use bayes_path and bayes_file_mode 0777 together in your local.cf to create a single bayes DB that gets used no matter what user calls SA. (Warnings: use bayes_file_mode 0777, not 0666. Also, read the docs on bayes_path very carefully. It's not just a path. The last part is actually the start of a filename, not a directory name)
Re: [sa-list] Re: Spamc, spamassassin, different scores
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote: Definitely not. Look at the prompts. Miguel is running spamassassin as root. Miguel is running spamc as root, but spamd will *NEVER* scan mail as root. It will setuid itself to nobody if it finds this situation. At least, not on a recent version -- this was a rather prominent bug under many OSen. Very true, that is a definite caveat to my statement that spamd will never scan mail as root. I suppose a better statement would be spamd should never scan mail as root. That said, AFAIK the many OSen are limited *BSD variants, including Mac OS X. In this case RedHat is the OS, which is Linux kernel based, which I think is immune to this issue due to differences in how the Linux kernel handles setuid as compared to the BSD kernel.
Re: Spamc, spamassassin, different scores
Yeah this was my problems, Thanks. El mar, 06-09-2005 a las 12:00 -0400, Matt Kettler escribió: Andy Jezierski wrote: Are you running the spamassassin command under the same userid as spamd is running under? Looks like spamd is using bayes that spamassassin did not have, and spamassassin had a negative AWL score that spamd didn't have. Definitely not. Look at the prompts. Miguel is running spamassassin as root. Miguel is running spamc as root, but spamd will *NEVER* scan mail as root. It will setuid itself to nobody if it finds this situation. This causes a huge difference, because only the root account has bayes training, but spamd will never use it. Notice that the spamassassin (run as root) version has BAYES_95 matching, but the spamc one does not. Miguel, this is your problem: you can't train with sa-learn as root and expect this to impact mail run through spamc, unless you set up a global bayes database. Ideally, I'd suggest creating a spamd user, and running spamd with -u spamd. Then when you train mail with sa-learn, just su yourself to spamd first. This way everything all gets scanned using the same bayes db. You also get the security benefit of all scanning being done as a user that isn't used for anything else. If that's not practical, use bayes_path and bayes_file_mode 0777 together in your local.cf to create a single bayes DB that gets used no matter what user calls SA. (Warnings: use bayes_file_mode 0777, not 0666. Also, read the docs on bayes_path very carefully. It's not just a path. The last part is actually the start of a filename, not a directory name)
Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores
From: Thomas Arend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Dienstag, 28. Dezember 2004 15:34 schrieb jdow:
From: Thomas Arend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 22:01 schrieb jdow:
From: Morris Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin Curran wrote:
Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on
whether spamassassin or spamc is called.
What's up with that?
Thanks!
You probably need to stop spamd and restart it so it rereads the .cf
files.
Cheers,
Mojo
Do remember that just before Christmas break I characterized a vaguely
similar problem with spamd. With per user rules enabled any given
spamd instance works perfectly the first time. The second time it will
appear to pick up the user rules but not the user scores. This is run
as the user with DROPPRIVS in the .procmailrc or as the user running
spanc. It is 100% repeatable here. Fortunately there is at the moment
only one user of the two here moved over to the new installation. So
moving to a direct spamassassin call seems to have eliminated the
problem, for now. I am waiting for someone to say they also can see
this effect. Then I'll go to the web (yuck) and file a BK report on it.
(I don't trust or like web user interfaces. {^_-})
{^_^}
I'm using SuSE 9.1 (latest updates) SA 3.0.2 with postfix, /etc/procmail
and spamd/spamc. I get exactly the same scores (disregarding the AWL) for
spamassassin and spamc/spamd.
my comments
1) Are you setup for per user rules in the ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs
file?
If not set up to do that. And setup a few simple rules and scores you
can test with text included in a test file.
2) Cut down the -m option for spamd to 1.
3) Restart spamd
4) Run spamassassin testfile|more to get baseline scores.
5) Run spamc testfile|more should be same as baseline scores.
Now the kicker
6) Run spamc testfile|more again. All scores picked up from user_prefs
will be 1 rather than the score in the user_prefs file.
For reference I am using postfix not in its customary chroot jail,
procmail with per user .procmailrc files, and spamd in the .procmailrc.
But I do not have to send a mail through the whole system to see the
effect. The above steps bypass most of the mail system and still show
the effect. I make sure the test file includes strings designed to kick
off rules. (I have a JD_CHERRY_POPPED rule and included cherry popped
in the text I tested. I took a known spam for headers and put in my own
text to force the user_prefs scores and rules.)
On thinking this over from the description above I wonder if this is
in some way connected with the growing spamd memory usage. Spamd does
grow after the first run. I didn't look after the second. (I could if
it's important.) It acted as if it thought it already had my scores
and rules memorized. Yet it had forgotten the scores. It should have
forgotten my rules, too. Then a second user would not have his mail
contaminated by my rules. (Boys aren't as bothered by porn. {^_-})
{^_^}
Hello again,
I can't reproduce this effect. For me all works fine. Scores are the same at
any time. But maybe I have not so much spam. So I have definitly on memory
shortage.
Thomas
OK, that suggests something, I'm not sure what. I have a gigabyte of
memory with a lot of it free. So it isn't a memory problem.
{O.O}
Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores
From: Thomas Arend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 22:01 schrieb jdow:
From: Morris Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin Curran wrote:
Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on
whether spamassassin or spamc is called.
What's up with that?
Thanks!
You probably need to stop spamd and restart it so it rereads the .cf
files.
Cheers,
Mojo
Do remember that just before Christmas break I characterized a vaguely
similar problem with spamd. With per user rules enabled any given
spamd instance works perfectly the first time. The second time it will
appear to pick up the user rules but not the user scores. This is run
as the user with DROPPRIVS in the .procmailrc or as the user running
spanc. It is 100% repeatable here. Fortunately there is at the moment
only one user of the two here moved over to the new installation. So
moving to a direct spamassassin call seems to have eliminated the
problem, for now. I am waiting for someone to say they also can see
this effect. Then I'll go to the web (yuck) and file a BK report on it.
(I don't trust or like web user interfaces. {^_-})
{^_^}
I'm using SuSE 9.1 (latest updates) SA 3.0.2 with postfix, /etc/procmail and
spamd/spamc. I get exactly the same scores (disregarding the AWL) for
spamassassin and spamc/spamd.
my comments
1) Are you setup for per user rules in the ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs file?
If not set up to do that. And setup a few simple rules and scores you
can test with text included in a test file.
2) Cut down the -m option for spamd to 1.
3) Restart spamd
4) Run spamassassin testfile|more to get baseline scores.
5) Run spamc testfile|more should be same as baseline scores.
Now the kicker
6) Run spamc testfile|more again. All scores picked up from user_prefs
will be 1 rather than the score in the user_prefs file.
For reference I am using postfix not in its customary chroot jail,
procmail with per user .procmailrc files, and spamd in the .procmailrc.
But I do not have to send a mail through the whole system to see the
effect. The above steps bypass most of the mail system and still show
the effect. I make sure the test file includes strings designed to kick
off rules. (I have a JD_CHERRY_POPPED rule and included cherry popped
in the text I tested. I took a known spam for headers and put in my own
text to force the user_prefs scores and rules.)
On thinking this over from the description above I wonder if this is
in some way connected with the growing spamd memory usage. Spamd does
grow after the first run. I didn't look after the second. (I could if
it's important.) It acted as if it thought it already had my scores
and rules memorized. Yet it had forgotten the scores. It should have
forgotten my rules, too. Then a second user would not have his mail
contaminated by my rules. (Boys aren't as bothered by porn. {^_-})
{^_^}
Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Dienstag, 28. Dezember 2004 15:34 schrieb jdow:
From: Thomas Arend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 22:01 schrieb jdow:
From: Morris Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin Curran wrote:
Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on
whether spamassassin or spamc is called.
What's up with that?
Thanks!
You probably need to stop spamd and restart it so it rereads the .cf
files.
Cheers,
Mojo
Do remember that just before Christmas break I characterized a vaguely
similar problem with spamd. With per user rules enabled any given
spamd instance works perfectly the first time. The second time it will
appear to pick up the user rules but not the user scores. This is run
as the user with DROPPRIVS in the .procmailrc or as the user running
spanc. It is 100% repeatable here. Fortunately there is at the moment
only one user of the two here moved over to the new installation. So
moving to a direct spamassassin call seems to have eliminated the
problem, for now. I am waiting for someone to say they also can see
this effect. Then I'll go to the web (yuck) and file a BK report on it.
(I don't trust or like web user interfaces. {^_-})
{^_^}
I'm using SuSE 9.1 (latest updates) SA 3.0.2 with postfix, /etc/procmail
and spamd/spamc. I get exactly the same scores (disregarding the AWL) for
spamassassin and spamc/spamd.
my comments
1) Are you setup for per user rules in the ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs file?
If not set up to do that. And setup a few simple rules and scores you
can test with text included in a test file.
2) Cut down the -m option for spamd to 1.
3) Restart spamd
4) Run spamassassin testfile|more to get baseline scores.
5) Run spamc testfile|more should be same as baseline scores.
Now the kicker
6) Run spamc testfile|more again. All scores picked up from user_prefs
will be 1 rather than the score in the user_prefs file.
For reference I am using postfix not in its customary chroot jail,
procmail with per user .procmailrc files, and spamd in the .procmailrc.
But I do not have to send a mail through the whole system to see the
effect. The above steps bypass most of the mail system and still show
the effect. I make sure the test file includes strings designed to kick
off rules. (I have a JD_CHERRY_POPPED rule and included cherry popped
in the text I tested. I took a known spam for headers and put in my own
text to force the user_prefs scores and rules.)
On thinking this over from the description above I wonder if this is
in some way connected with the growing spamd memory usage. Spamd does
grow after the first run. I didn't look after the second. (I could if
it's important.) It acted as if it thought it already had my scores
and rules memorized. Yet it had forgotten the scores. It should have
forgotten my rules, too. Then a second user would not have his mail
contaminated by my rules. (Boys aren't as bothered by porn. {^_-})
{^_^}
Hello again,
I can't reproduce this effect. For me all works fine. Scores are the same at
any time. But maybe I have not so much spam. So I have definitly on memory
shortage.
Thomas
- --
icq:133073900
aim:tawhv
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFB0XkCHe2ZLU3NgHsRAtsAAJ92bExc+ffUNg93jCFvAl1gL+3/YwCdENfW
gQhNGzmiM9i9kdBDqY9lf9c=
=rFKT
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
spamc/spamassassin = different scores
Hello list, I don't know about you all, but I've been getting a lot of false negatives that have a hit on the ALL_TRUSTED test. So, I disabled that test in local.cf. Now, I'm running SA on FreeBSD using sendmail and procmail. When the user's .procmailrc calls spamassassin it seems to honor local.cf. But when the .procmailrc calls spamc and spamd is running, it seems to ignore local.cf. Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on whether spamassassin or spamc is called. What's up with that? Thanks!
RE: spamc/spamassassin = different scores
|-Original Message- |From: Kevin Curran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Sent: 27 December 2004 07:09 |To: users@spamassassin.apache.org |Subject: spamc/spamassassin = different scores | |Hello list, | |I don't know about you all, but I've been getting a lot of |false negatives that have a hit on the ALL_TRUSTED test. So, |I disabled that test in local.cf. Now, I'm running SA on |FreeBSD using sendmail and procmail. |When the user's .procmailrc calls spamassassin it seems to |honor local.cf. |But when the .procmailrc calls spamc and spamd is running, it |seems to ignore local.cf. | |Tests show that an email will get a different score depending |on whether spamassassin or spamc is called. | |What's up with that? | |Thanks! | It sounds like you didn't restart spamd after you changed the local.cf file. Martin
Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 08:08 schrieb Kevin Curran: Hello list, I don't know about you all, Well, we don't no anything about your installation. but I've been getting a lot of false negatives that have a hit on the ALL_TRUSTED test. So, I disabled that test in local.cf. Now, I'm running SA on FreeBSD using sendmail and procmail. When the user's .procmailrc calls spamassassin it seems to honor local.cf. But when the .procmailrc calls spamc and spamd is running, it seems to ignore local.cf. 1. Which Version do you use? 2 Can you send an example which shows the difference you mean. 3. How do you start spamd? There are options which enable or disable some tests. So it's not unusal to get different scores. Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on whether spamassassin or spamc is called. 3. How do you start spamd? There are options which enable or disable some tests. So it's not unusal to get different scores. 4. How do you call spammassassin? 5. Do you call it with the same userid? 6. When different userids is bayes turned ON or OFF? Network tests turn ON or OFF? BTW: A good question and full accout of the circumstances leads mostly to precise answers. :-) My magical eye is lost somewhere. Thomas [..] - -- icq:133073900 aim:tawhv -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBz+lSHe2ZLU3NgHsRAnWWAJ43rkZ+xuQkxuNOOT4XHn/Y4kOeYQCfTlQD 9ufrGNayuH7gCePA/i2uq9U= =kj4x -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores
Kevin Curran wrote: Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on whether spamassassin or spamc is called. What's up with that? Thanks! You probably need to stop spamd and restart it so it rereads the .cf files. Cheers, Mojo -- Morris Jones Monrovia, CA http://www.whiteoaks.com Old Town Astronomers: http://www.otastro.org
Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores
From: Morris Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin Curran wrote:
Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on whether
spamassassin or spamc is called.
What's up with that?
Thanks!
You probably need to stop spamd and restart it so it rereads the .cf
files.
Cheers,
Mojo
Do remember that just before Christmas break I characterized a vaguely
similar problem with spamd. With per user rules enabled any given
spamd instance works perfectly the first time. The second time it will
appear to pick up the user rules but not the user scores. This is run
as the user with DROPPRIVS in the .procmailrc or as the user running
spanc. It is 100% repeatable here. Fortunately there is at the moment
only one user of the two here moved over to the new installation. So
moving to a direct spamassassin call seems to have eliminated the
problem, for now. I am waiting for someone to say they also can see
this effect. Then I'll go to the web (yuck) and file a BK report on it.
(I don't trust or like web user interfaces. {^_-})
{^_^}
