You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Scott Ryan <sc...@staff.telkomsa.net> on 2006/08/17 09:29:38 UTC
Missing Checks
What was be the difference in configs between two servers if when scanning the
same message 1 marks it as not spam and only does the following checks:
dbg: check: tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE
Yet the other machine does these checks and marks as spam:
dbg: check:
tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,TVD_FW_GRAPHIC_ID3
--
Regards,
Scott Ryan
Telkom Internet
-------------------------------------
Good judgement comes with experience.
Unfortunately, the experience
usually comes from bad judgement.
-------------------------------------
Re: Missing Checks
Posted by "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>.
Scott Ryan wrote:
> Many thanks, is there any way of sa-learn indication what new checks are now
> availlable? Or is that just a bad idea?
If you mean you want to see the difference between the stock and updated
rulesets (and not something to do with sa-learn, the bayes tool) then
you could diff the two rulesets (substitute appropriate directories if
necessary):
diff -u /usr/share/spamassassin/ \
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.001004/updates_spamassassin_org/
Daryl
Re: Missing Checks
Posted by Scott Ryan <sc...@staff.telkomsa.net>.
On Thursday 17 August 2006 10:59, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote with regard to -
Re: Missing Checks :
> Scott Ryan wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 August 2006 09:40, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote with regard to
> > -
> >
> > Re: Missing Checks :
> >> Scott Ryan wrote:
> >>> What was be the difference in configs between two servers if when
> >>> scanning the same message 1 marks it as not spam and only does the
> >>> following checks: dbg: check: tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE
> >>>
> >>> Yet the other machine does these checks and marks as spam:
> >>> dbg: check:
> >>> tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,TVD_FW_G
> >>>RA PHIC_ID3
> >>
> >> RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET: enable network checks on the first server
> >
> > Network checks were already enabled.
> >
> >> TVD_FW_GRAPHIC_ID3: use sa-update on the first server
> >
> > Thanks, this check was now done along with the RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET
> > check. [17166] dbg: check:
> > tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET
> >
> > And was subsequently trapped.
>
> RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET isn't a rule new to the set available via
> sa-update, so your previous run either suffered from a DNS timeout or
> intermittent failure.
>
> Daryl
Many thanks, is there any way of sa-learn indication what new checks are now
availlable? Or is that just a bad idea?
--
Regards,
Scott Ryan
ISP Systems Development & Integration Specialist
Telkom Internet
-------------------------------------
Good judgement comes with experience.
Unfortunately, the experience
usually comes from bad judgement.
-------------------------------------
Re: Missing Checks
Posted by "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>.
Scott Ryan wrote:
> On Thursday 17 August 2006 09:40, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote with regard to -
> Re: Missing Checks :
>> Scott Ryan wrote:
>>> What was be the difference in configs between two servers if when
>>> scanning the same message 1 marks it as not spam and only does the
>>> following checks: dbg: check: tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE
>>>
>>> Yet the other machine does these checks and marks as spam:
>>> dbg: check:
>>> tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,TVD_FW_GRA
>>> PHIC_ID3
>> RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET: enable network checks on the first server
>
> Network checks were already enabled.
>
>> TVD_FW_GRAPHIC_ID3: use sa-update on the first server
>
> Thanks, this check was now done along with the RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET check.
> [17166] dbg: check:
> tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET
>
> And was subsequently trapped.
RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET isn't a rule new to the set available via
sa-update, so your previous run either suffered from a DNS timeout or
intermittent failure.
Daryl
Re: Missing Checks
Posted by Scott Ryan <sc...@staff.telkomsa.net>.
On Thursday 17 August 2006 09:40, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote with regard to -
Re: Missing Checks :
> Scott Ryan wrote:
> > What was be the difference in configs between two servers if when
> > scanning the same message 1 marks it as not spam and only does the
> > following checks: dbg: check: tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE
> >
> > Yet the other machine does these checks and marks as spam:
> > dbg: check:
> > tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,TVD_FW_GRA
> >PHIC_ID3
>
> RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET: enable network checks on the first server
Network checks were already enabled.
>
> TVD_FW_GRAPHIC_ID3: use sa-update on the first server
Thanks, this check was now done along with the RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET check.
[17166] dbg: check:
tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET
And was subsequently trapped.
>
>
> Daryl
--
Regards,
Scott Ryan
Telkom Internet
-------------------------------------
Good judgement comes with experience.
Unfortunately, the experience
usually comes from bad judgement.
-------------------------------------
Re: Missing Checks
Posted by "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>.
Scott Ryan wrote:
> What was be the difference in configs between two servers if when scanning the
> same message 1 marks it as not spam and only does the following checks:
> dbg: check: tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE
>
> Yet the other machine does these checks and marks as spam:
> dbg: check:
> tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,TVD_FW_GRAPHIC_ID3
RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET: enable network checks on the first server
TVD_FW_GRAPHIC_ID3: use sa-update on the first server
Daryl