>>On Sat, 07 Feb 2009, Ricardo Kleemann wrote:
>> I have SA working very well for me, but there are still a few cases
of spam
>> that are very persistent, I still get a considerable amount of spam
that SA
>> doesn't catch.
>> However, what is annoying is that no matter how much I feed through
>> sa-learn, the SA score doesn't change much.
> Sahil Tandon wrote:
>Do you run sa-learn as the same user who is performing the SA checks on
>incoming mail? Does your Bayes database contain at least 200 (of each)
spam
>and ham? What is the output of:
> % sa-learn --dump magic
Hi all,
I seem to have the same problem as Ricardo. I feed the same stuff
every day
into Bayes, using sa-learn, but the tagging never changes. Otherwise, SA
seems
to be working perfectly on all other messages, but not with the ones I
constantly
feed it (they always seem to hit only BAYES_50).
I have a site-wide set-up though. There are no bayes databases for each
user.
Just one big one (two actually - one for each MX). I get the end-users
to dump
untagged spam into a shared Public Folder (Exchange) and then use Nick
Burch's
imap-sa-learn.pl tool to process the contents of the folder.
Spamassassin and the bayes databases are owned by user/group exim:exim.
Spamd is run like so:
daemon spamd -u exim -m 10 -d -x
I run the imap-sa-learn.pl program as "root" (which could be the
problem) but inside
that program I see:
my $username = 'spamassassin';
Which is the name of the user that owns the Public Folders on the
Exchange server.
Perhaps that needs to be changed to exim? Or I need to run the
imap-sa-learn.pl
program as user exim?
As for dump magic, I get...
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 33422 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 11180 0 non-token data: nham
0.000 0 290315 0 non-token data: ntokens
...on the secondary MX server.
The primary MX server is a little wilder though:
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 206774 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 1515235 0 non-token data: nham
0.000 0 917146 0 non-token data: ntokens
I hope that's OK (the wide disparity between nham and nspam).
I am running SpamAssassin version 3.2.5.
Thanks in advance for any tips.
- jim -
