On 9/28/2019 9:38 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 28 Sep 2019, at 0:24, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
Understood. I'm definitely stopping and starting the spamd
service. (Although it's called the spamassassin service, it is
definitely starting and stopping spamd.
I've done a ton of digging around. I located:
/usr/lib/systemd/system/spamassassin.service that starts
/usr/bin/spamd using options file /etc/sysconfig/spamassassin and
writes the log to /var/log/maillog.
In the maillog it says it is loading options from
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004000/updates_spamassassin_org/local.cf
I checked, and that file has required_score 4.0. Yet the rest of
the log file shows scores of x.x/5.0.
So I tried adding an option --cf=required_score 4.0 to the options
file. No change.
Then I tried adding it directly the spamd invocation in the service
file. No matter how many places I tell it I want 4.0. Something is
still overriding it to 5.0. Any other places you can think of that
I can look?
On 9/27/2019 11:49 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
What are the full command line options for spamd?
'ps aux |grep spamd' should tell you the ground truth.
On 28.09.19 00:21, Jerry Malcolm wrote:
With my extra parameter added....
/usr/bin/perl -T -w /usr/bin/spamd --pidfile /var/run/spamd.pid -D -d
-c -m5 -H --cf=required_score 4.0
the "required_score 4.0" should be enclosed in quotes of apostrophoes.
Or, in config file.
further, the empty -H changes how configs are used:
"By specifying no argument, spamd will use the spamc caller's home
directory
instead."
so, the calling user $HOME/.spamassassin/user_prefs is used
Matus,
Apparently, the whole problem was the quotes. I added the quotes to the
command line options, and it finally works. I didn't try adding quotes
in the local.cf file. But it makes sense. Note though, that the
commented "required_score" line in the shipped version of local.cf does
not have quotes. Perhaps quotes should get added to that file in the
distribution if they are required.
So now at least I know how to set the threshold. But my original
question has spawned a separate discussion of whether it is the right
thing do to change the threshold. I got one suggestion that, rather
than reducing the threshold, I go in and rework the scoring on all of
the rules in order to get my scores for obvious spam to rank above 5.0.
I appreciate all of the work and knowledge by the SA team and
contributors that has gone into refining the scoring on all of the
rules. If I don't have enough background to correctly lower the
threshold, I definitely don't have the background and experience (or
time) to rework the scoring on a thousand rules.
So the real question is.... why are MY scores on spam apparently lower
than the main population of SA users? I gotta believe that most users
are processing emails just fine with a 5.0 threshold and not getting
tons of uncaught spam. I have added KAM.cf. But I still a large
percentage of spam gets scored between 4 and 5. I understand that there
are a billion different strains of spam and the spam that user X
receives is different that the spam that user Y receives. But my lower
scores seem a bit too consistent for that to be the only problem.
Just curious you have a set of test cases that have an expected spam
score that I could run through my SA and compare, and maybe isolate what
rules might not be firing for me.
This is going to be an ongoing research problem for me. Not a
show-stopper today. But I would like to understand better about my
situation. I want to use SA as intended.
Thanks again,
Jerry
