CTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:47 AM
To: Dave Koontz
Cc: Justin Mason; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bayes not run ?
aha -- that's being added by SpamAssassin alright, then, due to
the add_header line.
Are you using 1 global Bayes db, or per-us
e only indication is SA's X-Spam-DataBase: Bayes not run. header.
SpamAssassin doesn't add a header like that... what are you using:
spamd, MailScanner, amavisd?
--j.
I use a product called MDaemon, which has a windows port of SA. Perhaps my
header mapping in local.cf is c
n on the reason (although I'm
not sure if MDaemon allows you to do that).
--j.
Dave Koontz writes:
> Justin Mason wrote:
>
> The only indication is SA's X-Spam-DataBase: Bayes not run. header.
>
>
> SpamAssassin doesn't add a header like that... what are you
Justin Mason wrote:
The only indication is SA's X-Spam-DataBase: Bayes not run. header.
SpamAssassin doesn't add a header like that... what are you using:
spamd, MailScanner, amavisd?
--j.
I use a product called MDaemon, which has a windows port of SA. Perhaps
my header
about permissions and is working fine.
>
> I am seeing this in both 3.2.3 and 3.2.4. I even tried creating a new
> bayes_toks database to no avail. I even removed 60_shortcircuit.cf
> thinking perhaps that was the culprit.
>
> The only indication is SA's X-Spam-Data
3.2.4. I even tried creating a new
bayes_toks database to no avail. I even removed 60_shortcircuit.cf
thinking perhaps that was the culprit.
The only indication is SA's X-Spam-DataBase: Bayes not run. header.
Thanks in advance for any additional hints or tips!
On Monday 14 August 2006 11:02, Nigel Frankcom took the opportunity to say:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 01:52:33 -0700, "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >(I manually train here. I distrust automatic training.)
> >
> >{^_^}
>
> I agree with not autotraining, imo it's a damned good way to get your
> bay
From: "Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
I will turn on auto leaarn mostly because I need to feed more HAM to SA
(so far I only feed ham for any false positive which is very low daily
and i think that is not good enough for SA)
If it is well trained then Bayes should
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:28:21 +0700, Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>>
I will turn on auto leaarn mostly because I need to feed more HAM to SA
(so far I only feed ham for any false positive which is very low daily
and i think that is not good enough for
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
I will turn on auto leaarn mostly because I need to feed more HAM to SA
(so far I only feed ham for any false positive which is very low daily
and i think that is not good enough for SA)
If it is well trained then Bayes should be hitting. It may be that
SA cannot
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 01:52:33 -0700, "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> jdow wrote:
>>> From: "Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
Hi,
From some (spam) mail which not caught by SA, it seems that bayes is
not applied to this mail.
X-Sp
From: "Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
From some (spam) mail which not caught by SA, it seems that bayes is
not applied to this mail.
X-Spam-Report:
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 1.7 SARE_SPEC_ROLEX Rolex watch spa
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:21:16 +0700, Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
From some (spam) mail which not caught by SA, it seems that bayes is
not applied to this mail.
X-Spam-Report:
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 1.7 SARE_SPEC_ROLEX Rol
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:21:16 +0700, Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
> From some (spam) mail which not caught by SA, it seems that bayes is
>not applied to this mail.
>
>X-Spam-Report:
> * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
> * 1.7 SARE_SPEC_ROLEX Rolex watch spam
>X-S
jdow wrote:
From: "Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
From some (spam) mail which not caught by SA, it seems that bayes is
not applied to this mail.
X-Spam-Report:
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 1.7 SARE_SPEC_ROLEX Rolex watch spam
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 requi
From: "Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
From some (spam) mail which not caught by SA, it seems that bayes is
not applied to this mail.
X-Spam-Report:
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 1.7 SARE_SPEC_ROLEX Rolex watch spam
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.2 tests
Hi,
From some (spam) mail which not caught by SA, it seems that bayes is
not applied to this mail.
X-Spam-Report:
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 1.7 SARE_SPEC_ROLEX Rolex watch spam
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.2 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SARE_SPEC_ROLEX
au
Hi, I often see that bayes is not run on all the SA input.
About 2 in 5 spam just has "Bayes not run" in the _BAYES_
headerlines, and no Bayes_XX score.
What could cause bayes to skip? Too high a load? Too many locks on
the bayes-files?
I can't find anything in the logfiles.
18 matches
Mail list logo
