Shortcurcuit scoring problem (3.2.5)

[Crocomoth <av...@algs.net>]

Hello,

I am using version 3.2.5 and, to reduce spam and SA footprint, turned on
shortcircuit plug-in.
I use standard 60_shortcircuit.cf.
At the first time, I enabled only whitelist/blacklist rules and this works
great.
Now, due to increasing amount of spam, I decided to turn on bayes
shortcircuit rules.
Shortcircuit doc
(http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_Shortcircuit.html)
says that in case of "spam" it "override the default score of this rule with
the score from shortcircuit_spam_score" but this was not true - plug-in does
not change score and it remains 3.5 which is lower than my threshold and it
breaks further checking and the situation gets worse than without this rule
- I have started receiving much more spam (with score 3.5 from bayes).
Ok, I have added to this file "shortcircuit_spam_score 100" and
"shortcircuit_ham_score 100" explicitly, but this did not help - result was
the same - looks like these options do not work at all.

Ok, I think, it is possible to change bayes_99 score in appropriate file,
but, I think, this will not be correct.

Thanks.

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Shortcurcuit-scoring-problem-%283.2.5%29-tp19414806p19414806.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Shortcurcuit scoring problem (3.2.5)

[Crocomoth <av...@algs.net>]

Felix,
Thank you for information.

guenther,
Yes, you are right, but this is not a reason for not working plug-ins and
options.
These options seems convenient and they are described in documentation, but
did not work in 3.2.3 and do not work up to now.

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Shortcurcuit-scoring-problem-%283.2.5%29-tp19414806p19513260.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Shortcurcuit scoring problem (3.2.5)

[Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>]

On Sat, 2008-09-13 at 03:13 +0200, Felix Buenemann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm experiencing the exact same problem with 3.2.3, y "fix" was simply 
> to manually specify the spam score:
> 
> # adjust for high efficiency rules
> score URIBL_BLACK 50
> score URIBL_JP_SURBL 50
> score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 50
> score RAZOR2_CHECK 50
> score BAYES_99 50
> # short circuit high efficiency rules
> shortcircuit URIBL_BLACK spam
> shortcircuit URIBL_JP_SURBL spam
> shortcircuit RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET spam
> shortcircuit RAZOR2_CHECK spam
> shortcircuit BAYES_99 spam

Single rule poison-pills are FP prone. Every rule in that list *does*
have false positives.

  guenther


-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}

Re: Shortcurcuit scoring problem (3.2.5)

[Felix Buenemann <Fe...@gmx.de>]

Hi,

I'm experiencing the exact same problem with 3.2.3, y "fix" was simply 
to manually specify the spam score:

# adjust for high efficiency rules
score URIBL_BLACK 50
score URIBL_JP_SURBL 50
score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 50
score RAZOR2_CHECK 50
score BAYES_99 50
# short circuit high efficiency rules
shortcircuit URIBL_BLACK spam
shortcircuit URIBL_JP_SURBL spam
shortcircuit RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET spam
shortcircuit RAZOR2_CHECK spam
shortcircuit BAYES_99 spam

-- Felix

Crocomoth schrieb:
> Hello,
>
> I am using version 3.2.5 and, to reduce spam and SA footprint, turned on
> shortcircuit plug-in.
> I use standard 60_shortcircuit.cf.
> At the first time, I enabled only whitelist/blacklist rules and this works
> great.
> Now, due to increasing amount of spam, I decided to turn on bayes
> shortcircuit rules.
> Shortcircuit doc
> (http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.2.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_Shortcircuit.html)
> says that in case of "spam" it "override the default score of this rule with
> the score from shortcircuit_spam_score" but this was not true - plug-in does
> not change score and it remains 3.5 which is lower than my threshold and it
> breaks further checking and the situation gets worse than without this rule
> - I have started receiving much more spam (with score 3.5 from bayes).
> Ok, I have added to this file "shortcircuit_spam_score 100" and
> "shortcircuit_ham_score 100" explicitly, but this did not help - result was
> the same - looks like these options do not work at all.
>
> Ok, I think, it is possible to change bayes_99 score in appropriate file,
> but, I think, this will not be correct.
>
> Thanks.
>