You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Sebastian Ries <se...@dtnet.de> on 2007/02/06 13:49:39 UTC
Difference between debian package and cpan-installation
Hi
We have several instacnes of spamassassin running.
Most of them are installed as Debian packages. When I upgrade these from
sarge-backports to version 3.1.7 and run sa-update I get about 95% of Spam
detected.
Another instance is running on an old Suse system. I uninstalled the
rpm-Packages and installed Spamassassin 3.1.7 via cpan. But even after an
sa-update I only have about 50% of Spam detected.
Does anyone know what is configured within the debian package that is
different from the cpan installation?
The configurations (local.cfg) are similar....
Any idea?
Regards
Sebastain Ries
--
------------------------------------------------------------
DT Netsolution GmbH - Talaeckerstr. 30 - D-70437 Stuttgart
Tel: +49-711-849910-36 Fax: +49-711-849910-936
WEB: http://www.dtnet.de/ email: Sebastian.Ries@dtnet.de
Re: Difference between debian package and cpan-installation
Posted by Sebastian Ries <se...@dtnet.de>.
Hi
> http://www.backports.org/backports.org/pool/main/s/spamassassin/spamassassi
>n_3.1.7-1~bpo.1.diff.gz
>
> That's the difference. :-)
LOL
> AFAICT, the Debian package merely adds an init script,
I did this manually
> changes /etc/mail/spamassassin to /etc/spamassassin, adds some
I don't care where the config is located as long as spamd finds it ;-)
> Debian-specific rules (which have no effect if sa-update is used), and does
> some other minor documentation changes.
That does not really affect the way SA is scanning/scoring mails...
So that's all OK.
Thanks
Sebastian Ries
--
------------------------------------------------------------
DT Netsolution GmbH - Talaeckerstr. 30 - D-70437 Stuttgart
Tel: +49-711-849910-36 Fax: +49-711-849910-936
WEB: http://www.dtnet.de/ email: Sebastian.Ries@dtnet.de
Re: Difference between debian package and cpan-installation
Posted by Magnus Holmgren <ho...@lysator.liu.se>.
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 13:49, Sebastian Ries wrote:
> We have several instacnes of spamassassin running.
>
> Most of them are installed as Debian packages. When I upgrade these from
> sarge-backports to version 3.1.7 and run sa-update I get about 95% of Spam
> detected.
>
> Another instance is running on an old Suse system. I uninstalled the
> rpm-Packages and installed Spamassassin 3.1.7 via cpan. But even after an
> sa-update I only have about 50% of Spam detected.
>
> Does anyone know what is configured within the debian package that is
> different from the cpan installation?
http://www.backports.org/backports.org/pool/main/s/spamassassin/spamassassin_3.1.7-1~bpo.1.diff.gz
That's the difference. :-)
AFAICT, the Debian package merely adds an init script,
changes /etc/mail/spamassassin to /etc/spamassassin, adds some
Debian-specific rules (which have no effect if sa-update is used), and does
some other minor documentation changes.
--
Magnus Holmgren holmgren@lysator.liu.se
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
"Exim is better at being younger, whereas sendmail is better for
Scrabble (50 point bonus for clearing your rack)" -- Dave Evans
Re: Difference between debian package and cpan-installation
Posted by Nick Leverton <nj...@leverton.org>.
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 15:57, Sebastian Ries wrote:
> I see that it's checked. That's why I typed "not REALLY checked" ;-)
>
> > It could be related to the locations of your rulesets
> > It could be related to the user you run SA/Spamd as
> > It could be related to the way you pipe the mail through
> > So many possibilities and so little evidence.
>
> As the mails are checked and other mails are scored right I don't think
> that this is releated to the location of rulesets or something else :-/
You obviously know so much more than me that I wonder how I've been
managing to run SA for the last four years. Can you tell me what I've
been doing wrong, that I don't get results like yours ?
> I am just wondering that there are mails that get not scored by ANY
> rule...
There may well be: only you can know since you won't tell us. Enjoy
diagnosing it ...
Nick
Re: Difference between debian package and cpan-installation
Posted by Sebastian Ries <se...@dtnet.de>.
Hi
> > > looks like the mail is not really checked...
>
> It is checked, you can tell from the fact that spamd has logged it.
I see that it's checked. That's why I typed "not REALLY checked" ;-)
> It could be related to the locations of your rulesets
> It could be related to the user you run SA/Spamd as
> It could be related to the way you pipe the mail through
> So many possibilities and so little evidence.
As the mails are checked and other mails are scored right I don't think that
this is releated to the location of rulesets or something else :-/
I am just wondering that there are mails that get not scored by ANY rule...
Regards
Sebastian Ries
--
------------------------------------------------------------
DT Netsolution GmbH - Talaeckerstr. 30 - D-70437 Stuttgart
Tel: +49-711-849910-36 Fax: +49-711-849910-936
WEB: http://www.dtnet.de/ email: Sebastian.Ries@dtnet.de
Re: Difference between debian package and cpan-installation
Posted by Nick Leverton <nj...@leverton.org>.
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 15:01, Sebastian Ries wrote:
> Hi
>
> > What I see is that there are many mails are rated with 0:
> > Feb 6 15:10:24 gatekeeper spamd[30092]: spamd: clean message
> > (0.0/5.0) for spamfilter:511 in 4.6 seconds, 2524 bytes.
> > Feb 6 15:10:24 gatekeeper spamd[30092]: spamd: result: . 0 -
> > scantime=4.6,size=2524,user=spamfilter,uid=511,required_score=5.0,rhos
> >t=loc alhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=1947,mid=<rt-14216-78060.14.24
> > 67618451724@Vorgang>,autolearn=unavailable
> >
> > looks like the mail is not really checked...
It is checked, you can tell from the fact that spamd has logged it.
> Did anyone have this situation before?
> Any idea what it is releated to?
It could be related to the locations of your rulesets
It could be related to the user you run SA/Spamd as
It could be related to the way you pipe the mail through
So many possibilities and so little evidence.
Perhaps you could start by sending (as attachments) one mail that was
scored as you wish and another one that wasn't, so that we don't have to
guess ?
Please don't obfuscate domains or IP addresses because that will render the
mail useless for diagnostics: just change the LHS of the email addresses
if you absolutely must hide them.
Nick
Re: Difference between debian package and cpan-installation
Posted by Sebastian Ries <se...@dtnet.de>.
Hi
> What I see is that there are many mails are rated with 0:
> Feb 6 15:10:24 gatekeeper spamd[30092]: spamd: clean message (0.0/5.0) for
> spamfilter:511 in 4.6 seconds, 2524 bytes.
> Feb 6 15:10:24 gatekeeper spamd[30092]: spamd: result: . 0 -
> scantime=4.6,size=2524,user=spamfilter,uid=511,required_score=5.0,rhost=loc
>alhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=1947,mid=<rt-14216-78060.14.24
> 67618451724@Vorgang>,autolearn=unavailable
>
> looks like the mail is not really checked...
Did anyone have this situation before?
Any idea what it is releated to?
Regards
Sebastian Ries
--
------------------------------------------------------------
DT Netsolution GmbH - Talaeckerstr. 30 - D-70437 Stuttgart
Tel: +49-711-849910-36 Fax: +49-711-849910-936
WEB: http://www.dtnet.de/ email: Sebastian.Ries@dtnet.de
Re: Difference between debian package and cpan-installation
Posted by Sebastian Ries <se...@dtnet.de>.
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 13:49, Sebastian Ries wrote:
> Hi
>
> We have several instacnes of spamassassin running.
>
> Most of them are installed as Debian packages. When I upgrade these from
> sarge-backports to version 3.1.7 and run sa-update I get about 95% of Spam
> detected.
>
> Another instance is running on an old Suse system. I uninstalled the
> rpm-Packages and installed Spamassassin 3.1.7 via cpan. But even after an
> sa-update I only have about 50% of Spam detected.
>
> Does anyone know what is configured within the debian package that is
> different from the cpan installation?
>
> The configurations (local.cfg) are similar....
>
> Any idea?
What I see is that there are many mails are rated with 0:
Feb 6 15:10:24 gatekeeper spamd[30092]: spamd: clean message (0.0/5.0) for
spamfilter:511 in 4.6 seconds, 2524 bytes.
Feb 6 15:10:24 gatekeeper spamd[30092]: spamd: result: . 0 -
scantime=4.6,size=2524,user=spamfilter,uid=511,required_score=5.0,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=1947,mid=<rt-14216-78060.14.24
67618451724@Vorgang>,autolearn=unavailable
looks like the mail is not really checked...
Regards
Sebastian
--
------------------------------------------------------------
DT Netsolution GmbH - Talaeckerstr. 30 - D-70437 Stuttgart
Tel: +49-711-849910-36 Fax: +49-711-849910-936
WEB: http://www.dtnet.de/ email: Sebastian.Ries@dtnet.de