Re: misc_10.cf

2009-02-09 Thread Matt Kettler
RobertH wrote: > > > >> Um, that's a file that comes with SA, and it is *NOT* user editable. >> Therefore, it's not an example, it is a standard config file >> that generates the default settings that you later over-ride >> with your local.cf. >> >> The 3.2.5 installation tarball will instal

RE: misc_10.cf

2009-02-09 Thread RobertH
> > 10_misc.cf isn't in 3.2, 3.1 was the last version to have it. > In 3.2 it's called 10_default_prefs.cf. > > You should have it installed in the default rules dir, > probably /usr/share/spamassassin. > > And no, it's not editable. Or more specifically, you > shouldn't edit it. > theo,

Re: misc_10.cf

2009-02-09 Thread Theo Van Dinter
10_misc.cf isn't in 3.2, 3.1 was the last version to have it. In 3.2 it's called 10_default_prefs.cf. You should have it installed in the default rules dir, probably /usr/share/spamassassin. And no, it's not editable. Or more specifically, you shouldn't edit it. On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 09:40:4

RE: misc_10.cf

2009-02-09 Thread RobertH
> Um, that's a file that comes with SA, and it is *NOT* user editable. > Therefore, it's not an example, it is a standard config file > that generates the default settings that you later over-ride > with your local.cf. > > The 3.2.5 installation tarball will install the version of > this fil

Re: misc_10.cf

2009-02-09 Thread Matt Kettler
RobertH wrote: > is this the best example on the www for this file? > > http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.0.x/dist/rules/10_misc.cf > > or is there one more recent for 3.2.5 or newer? > > - rh > > > Um, that's a file that comes with SA, and it is *NOT* user editable. Therefore, it's not an

misc_10.cf

2009-02-09 Thread RobertH
is this the best example on the www for this file? http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.0.x/dist/rules/10_misc.cf or is there one more recent for 3.2.5 or newer? - rh

Completing SA Upgrade

2009-02-09 Thread Rich Shepard
I upgraded my server to Slackware-12.2 and perl-5.10.0 This meant building and installing the lastest SA, built against perl-5.10.0 rather than -5.8.8. So, SA-3.2.5 is installed, and several perl modules were upgraded from CPAN to accommodate it. However, ... ... the related sa-learn and othe

Re: Calling spamc and looping through files

2009-02-09 Thread cnone
I found what is wrong.Thank u Karsten The problem was format of the email files. There are two extra headers in the beginning of the emails FROM: and RCPT TO:.So I removed all these headers and now spamassassin is doing its job which is excellent:) Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-

Re: Calling spamc and looping through files

2009-02-09 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 03:54 -0800, cnone wrote: > I scanned over 2000 mails and it gave me score over 5.0 for all of them. Most > of the scores were 5.4.Is there a way to change default threshold? By the Yes, there is. Mind having a look at your configuration? The default local.cf ships with a gla

Re: Humor? Attention, Bayes poison

2009-02-09 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 07:14 -0800, Jeff Chan wrote: > On Sunday, February 8, 2009, 2:02:56 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > > It was good for a laugh, really. :) Until a strange feeling crept over > > me, realizing the words... > > > Confirmed. That paragraph *severely* affected Bayes for me. No

Mail/SpamAssassin/CompiledRegexps/body_neg999.pm?

2009-02-09 Thread Michael Scheidell
not sure where this comes from? (!)_DIE: Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin/CompiledRegexps/body_neg999.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /var/db/spamassassin/compiled/5.008/3.002005 /var/db/spamassassin/compiled/5.008/3.002005/auto lib /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.8/BSDPAN /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.

Re: Humor? Attention, Bayes poison

2009-02-09 Thread Jeff Chan
On Sunday, February 8, 2009, 2:02:56 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > Just got this in an actual replica watch spam. > This spam was sent using an innocent third party as the fake sender address > who will pick up bounces and misdirected spam complaints. It went out via a > third party host

Re: Calling spamc and looping through files

2009-02-09 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 09.02.09 03:54, cnone wrote: > I scanned over 2000 mails and it gave me score over 5.0 for all of them. If they are not really spams, there is something broken in your configuration apparently > Most of the scores were 5.4.Is there a way to change default threshold? By > the way if the score i

Re: Calling spamc and looping through files

2009-02-09 Thread cnone
I scanned over 2000 mails and it gave me score over 5.0 for all of them. Most of the scores were 5.4.Is there a way to change default threshold? By the way if the score is very higher than 5.0 like 8.0,does that mean it has the highest probability to be a spam? Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >>

Re: Calling spamc and looping through files

2009-02-09 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 17:39 -0800, cnone wrote: > > Thank u very much.It works.By not accurate,you mean spam detection will not > > be accurate? On 09.02.09 03:50, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > By "accurate" I mean -- SA can do a best effort guess. SA can not one > hundred percent accurately iden