Mailing-List: contact users-help@spamassassin.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 23:33:34 +0000
From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com>
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Does spamc unwrap spam reports?
Message-ID: <20170103233334.347df211@gumby.homeunix.com>
In-Reply-To: <2d0d4931-10be-fe14-c0c2-40d5d8d5958a@in.tum.de>
References: <858a71d8-2b7b-2b16-ea24-987c4e35ec4f@in.tum.de>
	<20161228141231.05f56f3a@gumby.homeunix.com>
	<2d0d4931-10be-fe14-c0c2-40d5d8d5958a@in.tum.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 23:33:46 -0000

On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:39:52 +0100
Lukas Erlacher wrote:

> On 12/28/2016 03:12 PM, RW wrote:
> >
> > It's done in spamd. Don't attempt to remove X-Spam-* headers
> > yourself or it wont attempt to remove the mime encapsulation.
> >  
> 
> I'd like to convince myself of that... I ran `sudo -u debian-spamd
> spamc -c < spamspam.eml` on a mail that has spamlevel 14.4 and is
> encapsulated in a spam report. It gave 2.7/7.0... which I suppose is
> ok because it's an assessment of the spamminess of the whole mail.
> But that doesn't convince me...
> 
> How do I convince myself that it'll actually use the text of the 
> original spam mail to update the bayesian db?
 
You could try what I just did.

Edit a spam report and put made up words at the beginning of each
section, train it as spam and then put the made-up words through 
spamassassin -D bayes.


printf "\n\n Lhjkl  Ohjkl  Ihjkl \n" | spamassassin -D bayes
...
dbg: bayes: token 'ihjkl' => 0.986543689320388

Ihjkl was in the correct mime section at training - in the body of the
embedded spam.

What I don't get though is why isn't there a case-sensitive token
"Ihjkl"?