Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

please spamassassin -D bayes -t file.eml 2>/tmp/z and in /tmp/z you will have the score assigned to the "tokens"... from those points you will understand what created the different totals. If you can you may relearn all the messages, both ham and spam, with the tip suggested a couple of days ago,

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 10:41 PM, Loren Wilton wrote: They receive wildly different BAYES scores. * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% *  [score: 0.0002] *  2.2 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% *  [score: 0.0881] This looks like you have per-user Bayes databases

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 8:24 PM, joe a wrote: Did a simple test today sending an email from a gmail account to two email accounts on my system.   The only difference was the email address, both were on the same "To:" line in the composed messages. They receive wildly different BAYES scores. as was ment

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 8:24 PM, joe a wrote: On 2/17/2023 3:25 PM, joe a wrote: Did a simple test today sending an email from a gmail account to two email accounts on my system.   The only difference was the email address, both were on the same "To:" line in the composed messages. They receive wildly

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2023-02-17 at 22:41:05 UTC-0500 (Fri, 17 Feb 2023 19:41:05 -0800) Loren Wilton is rumored to have said: They receive wildly different BAYES scores. * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0002] * 2.2 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% * [

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

They receive wildly different BAYES scores. * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0002] * 2.2 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% * [score: 0.0881] This looks like you have per-user Bayes databases, and the messaage type has been trained di

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 3:25 PM, joe a wrote: Did a simple test today sending an email from a gmail account to two email accounts on my system. The only difference was the email address, both were on the same "To:" line in the composed messages. They receive wildly different BAYES scores.

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 11:44 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 10:54 -0500, joe a wrote: Could it have been that simple? If, like myself, you find reference books useful, you may want to get a copy of "Linux in a Nutshell" - an O'Reilly book. It tends to assume you know at least one oth

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 10:54 -0500, joe a wrote: Could it have been that simple? On 17.02.23 16:44, Martin Gregorie wrote: If, like myself, you find reference books useful, you may want to get a copy of "Linux in a Nutshell" - an O'Reilly book. It tends to assume you know at least one other OS

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 10:54 -0500, joe a wrote: > Could it have been that simple? > If, like myself, you find reference books useful, you may want to get a copy of "Linux in a Nutshell" - an O'Reilly book. It tends to assume you know at least one other OS fairly well, is well organised and conci

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 4:42 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 16.02.23 15:57, joe a wrote: Re-energized having recently heroically wrestled an elusive issue (to me) into surrender . . . we now turn to another issue. Probably I need to retrain BAYES "From scratch".  I have a mess (years?) of stored s

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/17/2023 7:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 16.02.23 um 23:34 schrieb joe a: I have no idea what you refer to when you state "don't user proper packages".  "Proper" in what sense? A rhetorical question. i have no idea how you installed SA but rpm packages or debs usually have correct perm

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 23:32 +0100, hg user wrote: > root can do anything. a restricted user can't: it's only allowed to do > what > others allowed it. > > it also runs with another environment, so it may miss PATHes or @INC > directories. > You can check this by running  env | less from a comma

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 16.02.23 15:57, joe a wrote: Re-energized having recently heroically wrestled an elusive issue (to me) into surrender . . . we now turn to another issue. Probably I need to retrain BAYES "From scratch". I have a mess (years?) of stored sample emails that and be relearned. I understand th

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/16/2023 9:13 PM, joe a wrote: Well, I am in unfamiliar waters. picking one error message as typical: plugin: failed to parse plugin (from @INC): Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/iXhash2.pm: lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/iXhash2.pm: Permission denied at (eval 1746) line 1. The fil

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/16/2023 8:28 PM, Matija Nalis wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 05:34:37PM -0500, joe a wrote: Oh, of course. I installed as root initially, being foolish perhaps, but did create a specific user "later" and adjusted permissions as needed. Or, so I thought. well, installing as root (especi

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 05:34:37PM -0500, joe a wrote: > Oh, of course. I installed as root initially, being foolish perhaps, but > did create a specific user "later" and adjusted permissions as needed. Or, > so I thought. well, installing as root (especially with restrictive umask) manually (

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

. . . it also runs with another environment, so it may miss PATHes or @INC directories. That throws me a curve.  What is an @INC directory?  SA specific? I do not find any with the locate command, but if the are an actual directory may need to escape the @ sign somehow.  \ does not seem to do

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/16/2023 5:32 PM, hg user wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 9:57 PM joe a > wrote: plugin: failed to parse plugin (from @INC): Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: Permission denied at (eval

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

. . . I have no idea what you refer to when you state "don't user proper packages".  "Proper" in what sense? A rhetorical question. i have no idea how you installed SA but rpm packages or debs usually have correct permissions Oh, of course. I installed as root initially, being foolish per

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 9:57 PM joe a wrote: > > plugin: failed to parse plugin (from @INC): Can't locate > Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: > lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: Permission denied at (eval 44) > line 1. > root can do anything. a restricted user can't: it's only allowed

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/16/2023 4:30 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 16.02.23 um 21:57 schrieb joe a: I understand that sa-learn should be run as the same user as spamd, however I find it has always been run as root and when running as the spamassassin user results in errors, such as: ~su -c "sa-learn --spam /var

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/14/2023 6:09 PM, joe a wrote: Please let this sit for a while, I've discovered a fundamental issue with my scheme of feeding messages to BAYES.  Unfortunately I was remiss, apparently, it setting up logging for some bits, so have no idea how long this has been failing. Sorry for the clut

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

he should not compare all the tokens but a rapid survey on the tokens derived from headers can tell him how the bayes result was formed. A couple of weeks ago some phishing reached our inboxes. Our custom rule gave the message 5 points but I was surprised that the message was categorized BAYES_00

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

However, many of tokens in even Forbes and WP newsletters may occure in different spamy newsletters, so be careful when traning even these. On 15.02.23 09:51, Alex wrote: This is exactly what I was thinking. When going through the quarantine, it's also very difficult to always not only identify

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

Hi, > > However, many of tokens in even Forbes and WP newsletters may occure in > different spamy newsletters, so be careful when traning even these. > This is exactly what I was thinking. When going through the quarantine, it's also very difficult to always not only identify which newsletters ma

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 15.02.23 14:53, hg user wrote: If you run spamassasin with -D bayes -t xxx 2>debug.log in debug.log you will see all the "tokens" the bayes system extracts from the headers and you will probably find a lot of them related to mailing lists. If you teach SA that those tokens are spam and they

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

If you run spamassasin with -D bayes -t xxx 2>debug.log in debug.log you will see all the "tokens" the bayes system extracts from the headers and you will probably find a lot of them related to mailing lists. If you teach SA that those tokens are spam and they are present both in WP or Forbes, t

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

*-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% >* [score: 0.] This indicates a mistrained database, which means you have trained too many spams or spam-like messages (commercial messages) as ham. Proper training of spams should help. Just keep your spam (and optionally ham) corp

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 13.02.23 17:42, joe a wrote: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES.  Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% *  [score: 0.] On 2/14/2023 2:56 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas w

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

Hi, >*-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% > >* [score: 0.] > > This indicates a mistrained database, which means you have trained too > many > spams or spam-like messages (commercial messages) as ham. > > Proper training of spams should help. Just keep your spam (and opt

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

Please let this sit for a while, I've discovered a fundamental issue with my scheme of feeding messages to BAYES. Unfortunately I was remiss, apparently, it setting up logging for some bits, so have no idea how long this has been failing. Sorry for the clutter. joe a. On 2/14/2023 5:37 PM,

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/14/2023 2:56 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 13.02.23 17:42, joe a wrote: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES.  Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% *  [score: 0.000

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 13.02.23 17:42, joe a wrote: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES. Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.] This indicates a mistrained database, which mean

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES. Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.] The score is reasonable for guaranteed ham, which is what your Bayes thinks this

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

joe a skrev den 2023-02-14 00:12: On 2/13/2023 5:51 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: joe a skrev den 2023-02-13 23:42: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES.  Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/13/2023 5:51 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: joe a skrev den 2023-02-13 23:42: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on . . . time to upgrade imho :=) . . . And, yes, I should upgrade.

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

On 2/13/2023 5:51 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: joe a skrev den 2023-02-13 23:42: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES.  Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% *  [score: 0.] Spa

Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

joe a skrev den 2023-02-13 23:42: Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES. Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.] SpamAssassin 3.4.5 time to upgrade imho :=) o

BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?

Have some annoying SPAM that consistently shows a negative score on BAYES. Is the default scoring or influenced by BAYES in some way? *-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.] SpamAssassin 3.4.5 Thanks for any pointers.