Am 12.06.2016 um 00:27 schrieb Sidney Markowitz:
Reindl Harald wrote on 12/06/16 9:31 AM:
headers don't help when you have a "spamd: result" log-line with a ton
Ah, finally I understand what you are trying to do! You analyze the spamd
result log lines, and they currently have two
Reindl Harald wrote on 12/06/16 9:31 AM:
>
> headers don't help when you have a "spamd: result" log-line with a ton
Ah, finally I understand what you are trying to do! You analyze the spamd
result log lines, and they currently have two deficiencies: 1) They do not
distinguish between Bayes
Am 11.06.2016 um 23:26 schrieb Sidney Markowitz:
Reindl Harald wrote on 12/06/16 9:08 AM:
and it's not worth to discuss since the *real* solution would be a
"BAYES_NOTOKS" which would appear *everywhere* and clearly explain why
no other BAYES_XX is present
I can't argue with that. Without
Reindl Harald wrote on 12/06/16 9:08 AM:
>
> and it's not worth to discuss since the *real* solution would be a
> "BAYES_NOTOKS" which would appear *everywhere* and clearly explain why
> no other BAYES_XX is present
I can't argue with that. Without the ability to make it a rule or a meta-rule
Am 11.06.2016 um 23:00 schrieb Sidney Markowitz:
Reindl Harald wrote on 12/06/16 8:37 AM:
it is not part of the report itself while tags, scores and descriptions
are - a report is something like this:
what you showed is defined in the configuration file using "report". Those
just happen to
Reindl Harald wrote on 12/06/16 8:37 AM:
>
> it is not part of the report itself while tags, scores and descriptions
> are - a report is something like this:
what you showed is defined in the configuration file using "report". Those
just happen to be the last lines of it in the default
Am 11.06.2016 um 19:06 schrieb Sidney Markowitz:
Reindl Harald wrote on 12/06/16 4:44 AM:
look above "sadly that works only for mail-headers - but don't appear in
the logs"
Oh, you mentioned spamc -R before and it does appear in that output. I got
that confused with the spamd logs - You're
Reindl Harald wrote on 12/06/16 4:44 AM:
> look above "sadly that works only for mail-headers - but don't appear in
> the logs"
>
Oh, you mentioned spamc -R before and it does appear in that output. I got
that confused with the spamd logs - You're right, I don't see them there.
Sidney
Am 11.06.2016 um 18:43 schrieb Sidney Markowitz:
Reindl Harald wrote on 12/06/16 2:13 AM:
sadly that works only for mail-headers - but don't appear in the logs
I just tried adding this to my local configuration, not pretty, just to see
what it would do
report tag values sender
Reindl Harald wrote on 12/06/16 2:13 AM:
> sadly that works only for mail-headers - but don't appear in the logs
I just tried adding this to my local configuration, not pretty, just to see
what it would do
report tag values sender _SENDERDOMAIN_ author _AUTHORDOMAIN_ bayesh
_BAYESTCHAMMY_
Am 11.06.2016 um 17:03 schrieb Sidney Markowitz:
Reindl Harald wrote on 12/06/16 2:13 AM:
sadly that works only for mail-headers - but don't appear in the logs
nor in a report generated with "/usr/bin/spamc -R" over a webinterface
which proceeds uploads of eml-files :-(
Yes I see how that
Reindl Harald wrote on 12/06/16 2:13 AM:
> sadly that works only for mail-headers - but don't appear in the logs
> nor in a report generated with "/usr/bin/spamc -R" over a webinterface
> which proceeds uploads of eml-files :-(
Yes I see how that could be useful. It might work if you define a
Am 11.06.2016 um 15:55 schrieb Sidney Markowitz:
Reindl Harald wrote on 12/06/16 1:04 AM:
output of "spamassassin -D < ignored_by_bayes_stripped.eml" attached
See this line in that output:
Jun 11 14:47:00.510 [5188] dbg: bayes: cannot use bayes on this message; not
enough usable tokens
Reindl Harald wrote on 12/06/16 1:04 AM:
> output of "spamassassin -D < ignored_by_bayes_stripped.eml" attached
See this line in that output:
Jun 11 14:47:00.510 [5188] dbg: bayes: cannot use bayes on this message; not
enough usable tokens found
> i would expect a bayes result in any case
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 04:52:48 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 10.06.2016 um 23:52 schrieb RW:
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:57:45 +0200
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> >> see attachemnt, no bayes tag at all looks like a major bug
> >> somewhere
> >
> > In the absence of any debug it's hard to say.
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 10.06.2016 um 23:52 schrieb RW:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:57:45 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
see attachemnt, no bayes tag at all looks like a major bug somewhere
In the absence of any debug it's hard to say.
hence i attached the sample
It is
Am 10.06.2016 um 23:52 schrieb RW:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:57:45 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
see attachemnt, no bayes tag at all looks like a major bug somewhere
In the absence of any debug it's hard to say.
hence i attached the sample
It is possible for no tokens to make it through the
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:57:45 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> see attachemnt, no bayes tag at all looks like a major bug somewhere
In the absence of any debug it's hard to say.
It is possible for no tokens to make it through the selection, in which
case there is no result. That's more likely than
18 matches
Mail list logo
