User rule found but sometimes not counted

[Arun Bhalla <bh...@uiuc.edu>]

Hi, about a week ago I upgraded to SA 3.0.0 from 2.64.  I run spamd (with
options "-d -c"), and call spamc from my .procmailrc.  SA is installed
systemwide (e.g., local.cf is in /etc/mail/spamassassin), but I
also have my own user_prefs file that I tweak.

I happen to get a fair amount of spam that references a mail address in
Aruba.  Since I don't have much interest in Aruba, I use the following
rule. (I could tweak it to also look for "Oranjestad" to be more specific.)

body     ARUBA                 /A\s?rub\s?a/
score    ARUBA                 5.0
describe ARUBA                 "Oranjestad, Aruba"

This rule seems to work well, but I've noticed that sometimes SA will detect
the rule but not count the score.  This seems to only occur with spamc.
At the very least, when I run "spamassassin -t" on the same message, ARUBA's
score will be counted.

For instance, here's a snippet from a recently miscounted email:

X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on xxx
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.1 required=3.8 tests=ARUBA,BAYES_50,HTML_40_50,
        HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_MOSTLY,MPART_ALT_DIFF autolearn=no
        version=3.0.0
X-Spam-Level: **

The score should have been at least 7.1, but instead it's only 2.1.  Clearly
ARUBA was found but not scored.

This is slightly annoying, but it might be more troubling if this is happening
to other rules in one's user_prefs files, or maybe other rules in general.

If this sort of problem hasn't been noticed before, I'll be happy to help,
presumably by turning on -D for spamd.

Thanks,
Arun

Re: User rule found but sometimes not counted

[Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>]

At 04:31 PM 9/30/2004, Arun Bhalla wrote:
> > >Hi, about a week ago I upgraded to SA 3.0.0 from 2.64.  I run spamd (with
> > >options "-d -c"), and call spamc from my .procmailrc.  SA is installed
> > >systemwide (e.g., local.cf is in /etc/mail/spamassassin), but I
> > >also have my own user_prefs file that I tweak.
> >
> >
> > Is allow_user_rules set in local.cf? If not, spamd is required to ignore
> > your rules in user_prefs, and it's a bug that they are being parsed at all.
>
>Good question!  I should have mentioned that, but yes, it is.
>
>allow_user_rules        1
>
>So it's not that.

Ok, next shot.. any complaints issued when you run spamassassin --lint?

Re: User rule found but sometimes not counted

[Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>]

At 04:23 PM 9/30/2004, Arun Bhalla wrote:
>Hi, about a week ago I upgraded to SA 3.0.0 from 2.64.  I run spamd (with
>options "-d -c"), and call spamc from my .procmailrc.  SA is installed
>systemwide (e.g., local.cf is in /etc/mail/spamassassin), but I
>also have my own user_prefs file that I tweak.


Is allow_user_rules set in local.cf? If not, spamd is required to ignore 
your rules in user_prefs, and it's a bug that they are being parsed at all.

Re: User rule found but sometimes not counted

[Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>]

> AB> This rule seems to work well, but I've noticed that sometimes SA will
> AB> detect the rule but not count the score.  ...
>
> Can't answer that. In addition to the -D test you offered, it might
> provide useful information if the SARE version has the same problem on
> your system.

Interestingly, I'm still running 2.63, and while going thru the month's
spams earlier this evening looking for patterns, I was noticing a rule that
should have fired in many cases was failing to fire randomly in a number of
cases.  Running the rule manually would trip every time, but it clearly
didn't fire on a number of mails when they were originally processed.

Perhaps this is a problem that is older than 3.0, and has just been noticed.

        Loren

Re: User rule found but sometimes not counted

[Robert Menschel <Ro...@Menschel.net>]

Hello Arun,

Thursday, September 30, 2004, 1:23:48 PM, you wrote:

AB> Hi, about a week ago I upgraded to SA 3.0.0 from 2.64.  ...

AB> I happen to get a fair amount of spam that references a mail address
AB> in Aruba.  Since I don't have much interest in Aruba, I use the
AB> following rule. (I could tweak it to also look for "Oranjestad" to be
AB> more specific.)

Doesn't directly answer your problem, but you might be interested in
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#specific -- it includes a much
more generalized and powerful ARUBA rule, SARE_SPEC_ARUBA.

AB> This rule seems to work well, but I've noticed that sometimes SA will
AB> detect the rule but not count the score.  ...

Can't answer that. In addition to the -D test you offered, it might
provide useful information if the SARE version has the same problem on
your system.

Bob Menschel