You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by saqariden <sa...@ac-montpellier.fr> on 2018/02/22 09:15:31 UTC
spamasssassin vs mimedefang scores
Hello guys,
i'm using mimedefang with spamassasin, when I test an email with the
command "spamassain -t file.eml", I got results like this:
Dails de l'analyse du message: (-5.8 points, 3.0 requis)
-5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
high
trust
[70.38.112.54 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: L'algorithme Bayien a alula
probabilitde spam
entre 0 et 1%
[score: 0.0000]
0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host
with no rDNS
0.3 TO_EQ_FM_DOM_SPF_FAIL To domain == From domain and external SPF
failed
However, the SA check which was done trough mimedefang, seems like
giving other scores, how can i test an email to get these scores, and
saw the difference.
Signature Academique
Re: spamasssassin vs mimedefang scores
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <ke...@mcgrail.com>.
On 2/22/2018 4:15 AM, saqariden wrote:
> i'm using mimedefang with spamassasin, when I test an email with the
> command "spamassain -t file.eml", I got results like this:
>
> Dails de l'analyse du message: (-5.8 points, 3.0 requis)
> -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at
> http://www.dnswl.org/, high
> trust
> [70.38.112.54 listed in list.dnswl.org]
>
> -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: L'algorithme Bayien a alula
> probabilitde spam
> entre 0 et 1%
> [score: 0.0000]
> 0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host
> with no rDNS
> 0.3 TO_EQ_FM_DOM_SPF_FAIL To domain == From domain and external SPF
> failed
>
> However, the SA check which was done trough mimedefang, seems like
> giving other scores, how can i test an email to get these scores, and
> saw the difference.
Network tests and Bayesian tests could change in between runs.
Unless you ran the tests almost concurrently, this could be
normal/expected behavior.
I love MD and I don't run it with spamassassin it's space. I use a
system call to spamc and interpret the results. That way I'm always
using the same configuration for spamassassin and I can spam it onto
other servers easily.
Regards,
KAM
Re: spamasssassin vs mimedefang scores
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
On 22 Feb 2018, at 4:15, saqariden wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> i'm using mimedefang with spamassasin, when I test an email with the
> command "spamassain -t file.eml", I got results like this:
>
> Dails de l'analyse du message: (-5.8 points, 3.0 requis)
> -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at
> http://www.dnswl.org/, high
> trust
> [70.38.112.54 listed in list.dnswl.org]
>
> -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: L'algorithme Bayien a alula
> probabilitde spam
> entre 0 et 1%
> [score: 0.0000]
> 0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host
> with no rDNS
> 0.3 TO_EQ_FM_DOM_SPF_FAIL To domain == From domain and external SPF
> failed
>
> However, the SA check which was done trough mimedefang, seems like
> giving other scores, how can i test an email to get these scores, and
> saw the difference.
Typically mimedefang runs as its own special user (e.g. 'defang') which
may be configured to block normal interactive use or even simple 'su'
use by root. This means that if you run 'spamassassin -t' in an
interactive shell, you use the user_prefs, AWL/TxRep and BayesDB for the
user running that shell, not the special user. This is particularly
problematic for 'learning' ham and spam for the BayesDB, because it is
easy to end up either training into a DB that is entirely separate from
the system-wide one used by mimedefang OR working with the system-wide
DBs in ways that change ownership of them so that mimedefang can't use
them.
My solution for this is to use sudo and these shell aliases:
satest='sudo -H -u defang spamassassin -t '
lham='sudo -H -u defang sa-learn --ham --progress '
lspam='sudo -H -u defang sa-learn --spam --progress '
blspam='sudo -H -u defang spamassassin --add-to-blacklist '
reportspam='sudo -H -u defang spamassassin -r -t '