You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org on 2011/10/18 17:36:41 UTC
[Bug 6677] New: X-Spam-Status shows "No, score=-0.0" while Content
analysis details shows (10.9 points, 5.0 required)
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6677
Bug #: 6677
Summary: X-Spam-Status shows "No, score=-0.0" while Content
analysis details shows (10.9 points, 5.0 required)
Product: Spamassassin
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: minor
Priority: P2
Component: Score Generation
AssignedTo: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
ReportedBy: spamassassin@illogic.de
Classification: Unclassified
Created attachment 4981
--> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4981
The spam mail mentioned, rewrapped by SA
Hi there,
I'm using SA 3.3.1 with procmail on Debian Squeeze. I read through Bug ID 2551
already, however have a hard time to find any correlation. My global
/etc/procmailrc currently looks like this:
DROPPRIVS=yes
MAILDIR=$HOME/Maildir
DEFAULT=$MAILDIR/
#format mailbox
:0fw
| /usr/bin/spamassassin
* ^X-Spam-Flag: Yes
.SPAM/new
So far SA rewraps Spam-mails just fine. Don't have the impression it runs twice
as described in Bug ID 2551.
Best regards
Markus
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6677] X-Spam-Status shows "No, score=-0.0" while Content
analysis details shows (10.9 points, 5.0 required)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6677
Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kmcgrail@pccc.com
--- Comment #2 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-10-18 16:49:30 UTC ---
I wonder if we can add a "machine ID" or something like that to the config that
is then appended to the X-Spam-Status header.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6677] X-Spam-Status shows "No, score=-0.0" while Content
analysis details shows (10.9 points, 5.0 required)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6677
Darxus <Da...@ChaosReigns.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |Darxus@ChaosReigns.com
--- Comment #1 from Darxus <Da...@ChaosReigns.com> 2011-10-18 16:38:00 UTC ---
The submitter of bug #2551 also said "I am almost positive that we are not
running spamassassin twice."
He was incorrect. You probably are too.
Maybe we could make a rule just to detect this problem?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6677] X-Spam-Status shows "No, score=-0.0" while Content
analysis details shows (10.9 points, 5.0 required)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6677
--- Comment #5 from Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de> 2011-10-18 19:08:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Maybe we could make a rule just to detect this problem?
A rule won't work (or be inefficient, see below), because SA headers get X-Spam
prepended -- however, a cheap header rule won't work, because SA drops all
existing X-Spam headers for this kind of test.
While this occasionally comes up, I don't think it's worth detecting. It's a
mis-configuration of the mail processing chain, not exactly our business.
Moreover, there *are* legitimate cases where one might want to process mail a
second time in user-land.
-1 on adding such detection
That said, it *is* already possible to investigate and detect processing mail a
second time with SA. It's a rather costly rule, but it quickly can be thrown in
to the configuration for investigation -- well, if one doesn't know how ones
own mail processing chain works...
As mentioned, header rules won't work. The expensive full rule, however, does.
full HELLO_OLD_FRIEND /^X-Spam-Checker-Version: .+ _HOSTNAME_$/m
The _HOSTNAME_ is just a placeholder (the Template Tag used), and must be
substituted in that rule with the actual value.
If you want, you can also do this with your specific, unique magic number or
secret. Just add_header it, and modify the rule above to match against your
X-Spam-Magic header.
add_header all Magic "Magic is real, unless defined integer."
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6677] X-Spam-Status shows "No, score=-0.0" while Content
analysis details shows (10.9 points, 5.0 required)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6677
Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #4 from Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de> 2011-10-18 18:10:21 UTC ---
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham
version=3.3.1
The second SA instance obviously gets the wrapped mail. Note the NO_RELAYS test
being the only hit. Whereas the first instance shows rules triggered like
RDNS_NONE and HELO_DYNAMIC.
Not a SA bug, closing RESOLVED INVALID.
(In reply to comment #0)
> So far SA rewraps Spam-mails just fine. Don't have the impression
> it runs twice [...]
Do I understand that correctly you're a new SA user? If you need help setting
it up or troubleshooting, please tend to the SA users mailing-list.
Some further comments:
> MAILDIR=$HOME/Maildir
> DEFAULT=$MAILDIR/
> #format mailbox
> :0fw
> | /usr/bin/spamassassin
> * ^X-Spam-Flag: Yes
> .SPAM/new
You'd better use spamc / spamd, rather than the plain 'spamassassin' script.
Also, your delivery line is suspicious. While it *looks* like you intend to use
Maildir storage, it actually makes procmail (try to) use mbox format (no
trailing slash). To use Maildir format, procmail expects a trailing slash.
Also, it will automatically use new/ with Maildir format for delivery -- don't
append that.
So, if .SPAM/ is a directory in $HOME/Maildir/ and expected to use Maildir
format, the delivery line should read:
.SPAM/
(FWIW, that's Maildir and mbox as in the mail storage formats. Not to be
confused with the procmail variable MAILDIR, which is used in both cases.)
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6677] X-Spam-Status shows "No, score=-0.0" while Content
analysis details shows (10.9 points, 5.0 required)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6677
--- Comment #3 from Darxus <Da...@ChaosReigns.com> 2011-10-18 16:53:03 UTC ---
I was thinking something similar, randomly generate it once, and never use it
to improve the chances of an email getting through because it could easily be
forged, but use it to hit a rule to indicate SA had been run multiple times.
Where would that ID be stored? Could just use the output of "hostname -f".
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6677] X-Spam-Status shows "No, score=-0.0" while Content
analysis details shows (10.9 points, 5.0 required)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6677
spamassassin@illogic.de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |spamassassin@illogic.de
--- Comment #6 from spamassassin@illogic.de 2011-10-19 07:54:27 UTC ---
Yes, I am new to SA - sorry for bothering. However from a usability standpoint
I hope you might admit, that a score of "-0.0" is somewhat counterintuitive. I
wonder, what might the score be for being the only dimwit in seven years who
filed a bug report on this...thank you anyway for taking your time and looking
into this.
Cheers
Markus
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6677] X-Spam-Status shows "No, score=-0.0" while Content
analysis details shows (10.9 points, 5.0 required)
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6677
--- Comment #7 from Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de> 2011-10-19 20:10:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Yes, I am new to SA - sorry for bothering. However from a usability standpoint
> I hope you might admit, that a score of "-0.0" is somewhat counterintuitive. I
It's rounded to one decimal place. The actual score would be -0.01, used for
informational rules -- as opposed to spam or ham indicators.
> wonder, what might the score be for being the only dimwit in seven years who
> filed a bug report on this...thank you anyway for taking your time and looking
> into this.
Oh, and you're not "bothering", neither the only one in the last seven years
who accidentally fed mail to SA twice.
This is just the wrong place to follow up with your issue. Bugzilla is a bug
and feature tracking tool, not suited for discussion and even less so for
support. Hence me pointing you to the users mailing-list in comment 4.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.