You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by BAKONYI Péter - paha <pa...@paha.hu> on 2005/05/04 01:06:52 UTC
Spam messages got negative points
Hello Everybody!
I'm new at this list. I'm using spamassassin on my debian box since 2
years and now I've upgraded to a new machine, new installation and a new
version (3.0.2) os spamassassin. But something seems to be wrong
because I got a lot of spam messages which is not identified to be a
spam because of some _negative_ points. I'm sure that they were
correctly identified to be a spam on my previous version on SA. Can
someone tell me any ideas?
Thank you!!!
Peter Bakonyi
Re: Spam messages got negative points
Posted by "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>.
BAKONYI Péter - paha wrote:
> Hello Everybody!
>
> I'm new at this list. I'm using spamassassin on my debian box since 2
> years and now I've upgraded to a new machine, new installation and a new
> version (3.0.2) os spamassassin. But something seems to be wrong
> because I got a lot of spam messages which is not identified to be a
> spam because of some _negative_ points. I'm sure that they were
> correctly identified to be a spam on my previous version on SA. Can
> someone tell me any ideas?
>
> Thank you!!!
>
> Peter Bakonyi
It's probably a faulty flux capacitor. ;)
Unless you actually tell us what rules are firing it's kind of hard to
tell you why! I'll place my bets on a mis configured trust path though.
Daryl
Re: Spam messages got negative points
Posted by "Tom Q. Citizen" <to...@bay-online-media.com>.
How does one delete the bayes database?
Peace...
Tom
On Wed, May 4, 2005 3:02 pm, Ryan Castellucci said:
> Looks like bayes is dropping the score. Did you manualy train your
> bayes database, or use autolearning?
>
> You may need to delete your bayes database and start over.
>
> On 5/4/05, BAKONYI Péter - paha <pa...@paha.hu> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> >>I'm new at this list. I'm using spamassassin on my debian box since 2
>> >>years and now I've upgraded to a new machine, new installation and a
>> >>new version (3.0.2) os spamassassin. But something seems to be
>> >>wrong because I got a lot of spam messages which is not identified to
>> >>be a spam because of some _negative_ points. I'm sure that they were
>> >>correctly identified to be a spam on my previous version on SA. Can
>> >>someone tell me any ideas?
>> > Can you post an X-Spam-Status header?
>> > Without that, no real clue, but I can guess that you might have had
>> > ALL_TRUSTED hit. If that's the case, read this:
>> > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TrustPath
>>
>> thanks for your replies. here's an X-Spam-Status header from a message
>> which was identified to be a spam before the new version and not spam
>> right now:
>>
>> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=6.6
>> tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX,
>> EARN_PER_WEEK,HTML_50_60,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06,HTML_MESSAGE,
>> HTML_WEB_BUGS autolearn=no version=3.0.2
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> peter
>>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Castellucci http://ryanc.org/
>
Re: Spam messages got negative points
Posted by Ryan Castellucci <ry...@gmail.com>.
Looks like bayes is dropping the score. Did you manualy train your
bayes database, or use autolearning?
You may need to delete your bayes database and start over.
On 5/4/05, BAKONYI Péter - paha <pa...@paha.hu> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >>I'm new at this list. I'm using spamassassin on my debian box since 2
> >>years and now I've upgraded to a new machine, new installation and a
> >>new version (3.0.2) os spamassassin. But something seems to be
> >>wrong because I got a lot of spam messages which is not identified to
> >>be a spam because of some _negative_ points. I'm sure that they were
> >>correctly identified to be a spam on my previous version on SA. Can
> >>someone tell me any ideas?
> > Can you post an X-Spam-Status header?
> > Without that, no real clue, but I can guess that you might have had
> > ALL_TRUSTED hit. If that's the case, read this:
> > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TrustPath
>
> thanks for your replies. here's an X-Spam-Status header from a message
> which was identified to be a spam before the new version and not spam
> right now:
>
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=6.6
> tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX,
> EARN_PER_WEEK,HTML_50_60,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06,HTML_MESSAGE,
> HTML_WEB_BUGS autolearn=no version=3.0.2
>
> thanks,
>
> peter
>
--
Ryan Castellucci http://ryanc.org/
Re: Spam messages got negative points
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
> tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX,
Bayes says it is absolutely dead sure ham, not spam.
Broken bayes database, it sounds like.
Loren
Re: Spam messages got negative points
Posted by BAKONYI Péter - paha <pa...@paha.hu>.
Hi!
>>I'm new at this list. I'm using spamassassin on my debian box since 2
>>years and now I've upgraded to a new machine, new installation and a
>>new version (3.0.2) os spamassassin. But something seems to be
>>wrong because I got a lot of spam messages which is not identified to
>>be a spam because of some _negative_ points. I'm sure that they were
>>correctly identified to be a spam on my previous version on SA. Can
>>someone tell me any ideas?
> Can you post an X-Spam-Status header?
> Without that, no real clue, but I can guess that you might have had
> ALL_TRUSTED hit. If that's the case, read this:
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TrustPath
thanks for your replies. here's an X-Spam-Status header from a message
which was identified to be a spam before the new version and not spam
right now:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=6.6
tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX,
EARN_PER_WEEK,HTML_50_60,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06,HTML_MESSAGE,
HTML_WEB_BUGS autolearn=no version=3.0.2
thanks,
peter
Re: Spam messages got negative points
Posted by Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>.
BAKONYI Péter - paha wrote:
> Hello Everybody!
>
> I'm new at this list. I'm using spamassassin on my debian box since 2
> years and now I've upgraded to a new machine, new installation and a
> new version (3.0.2) os spamassassin. But something seems to be
> wrong because I got a lot of spam messages which is not identified to
> be a spam because of some _negative_ points. I'm sure that they were
> correctly identified to be a spam on my previous version on SA. Can
> someone tell me any ideas?
Can you post an X-Spam-Status header?
Without that, no real clue, but I can guess that you might have had
ALL_TRUSTED hit. If that's the case, read this:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TrustPath