LuKreme wrote:
[...] Here's your post's X-Spam-Status header:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,J_CHICKENPOX_44 autolearn=no version=2.63
Well, it's not showing 'none' at least, so that's encouraging. And it is hitting the addon rule sets.
For what it's worth I have Chickenpox, backhair, and a fairly recent bigevil installed
Hmm... and --lint shows nothing?
Nope, nothing at all.
kremels $ spamassassin -V --lint SpamAssassin version 2.63 kremels $
I'm very puzzled.
I've also very concerned to see I have nearly 20% of my mail getting tagged with tests=none, but I may be misunderstanding the implications of that. Seems to me highly implausible that a message wouldn't hit a AWL or something....
$ sa-learn --dump | head -11
0.000 0 2 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 268 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 101077 0 non-token data: nham
0.000 0 129966 0 non-token data: ntokens
0.000 0 1076718523 0 non-token data: oldest atime
0.000 0 1079279775 0 non-token data: newest atime
0.000 0 1079280007 0 non-token data: last journal sync atime
0.000 0 1078949120 0 non-token data: last expiry atime
0.000 0 2230640 0 non-token data: last expire atime delta
0.000 0 33116 0 non-token data: last expire reduction count
0.049 0 1 1076719407 H*m:1076719206
I notice the nspam count is very low. I generally dump spam messages into a SPAM box and don't train on them because I thought that messages tagged as spam where automatically trained. Should I be running sa-learn against my known spam? I'd only been doing it against spam that was not correctly tagged by SA. (or spam that was incorrectly tagged, though that is very very rare).
--
#242755 <jshock221> a freudian slip is when you say one thing but you're really thinking about a mother.
<Spadgeroonie> no, a freudian slip is sexy underwear your mother wears
