spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Amir 'CG' Caspi" <>
Subject Re: New rule for HTML spam, using comments?
Date Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:11:55 GMT
At 4:37 PM -0400 06/14/2013, Alex wrote:
>I think the only difference would be if spamd somehow didn't recognize
>all the locations for your rules. Perhaps create a rule that you know
>will hit with a very low score in each directory that contains rules.
>Maybe there's a way to run spamd in the foreground with debugging,
>like there is with amavisd.

So, I again ran the email through spamassassin manually and, after 
restarting spamd, I ran it through spamc/spamd.  In both cases, I got 
bayes99 hits, along with LONGWORDS and MIME_NO_TEXT.  There was a 
minor difference in scores and tests between spamassassin and 
spamc/spamd (the former got a hit on NO_DNS_FOR_FROM, while the 
latter got a hit on DKIM_ADSP_NXDOMAIN), but they were pretty 
equivalent for the most part.

So, at least right now, it seems I _should_ be getting the same (or 
similar) scores through both methods.  I still have no idea why spamd 
wouldn't have given bayes99 previously, unless it really was some 
sort of change in the rules and spamd needed a restart.  (If that's 
the case, I'll just add a cron job to reboot spamd daily.)

Though, on that note, why would spamassassin hit on NO_DNS_FOR_FROM 
but not DKIM_ADSP_NXDOMAIN, while spamc/spamd would hit on the second 
and not the first?  They are getting identical input files... 
literally (I'm piping the same file into both commands).

						--- Amir

View raw message