Re[2]: Care and feeding instructions for SpamAssassin?

[Robert Menschel <Ro...@Menschel.net>]

Hello FH,

Monday, February 14, 2005, 11:30:14 AM, you wrote:

F> Thanks for the help/pointers :D So where are these other FAQs?
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/FrequentlyAskedQuestions

F> I think I need a good crash course on how/where to setup custom rules
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WritingRules

F> and to make sure the learning process is doing what it is supposed to be doing.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AutolearningNotWorking
F> For example the dates on the /var/spool/spamassassin files (journal/seen/toks)
Good.
F> seem to be constantly changing but the /usr/local/share/spamassassin files
F> (what I think are the rules files) haven't changed since I installed them.
F> I would have thought after running sa_learn they would have changed
F> a bit. Does that sound right?
No, sa-learn updates the Bayes files, not the rules files.  The rules
files will not change unless you change them (and you should generally
NOT change the original installation rules files -- that's reserved
for installing new versions).

F> I have to say I'm getting a little frustrated w/ the
F> process/program.  For example no matter how many times I dump spam
F> w/ "Tadalafil" into the sa-learn process (and these are the
F> messages I get not the forwarded messages I was talking about
F> earlier) it's still not marking new messages as spam :(

Based on the problems others have had recently, I wonder whether
you're a) feeding this spam into one Bayes database, but b) reading a
different Bayes database when testing new emails that arrive on your
system.

F> BTW since lint output seems to be a popular thing people ask about
F> here's what I get, in case there's something about the way I'm
F> running it that's not correct.  In particular are those ('require'
F> failed) messages something to be concerned about?

I don't see anything seriously wrong with your output (though there
are lines I couldn't say whether they're right or wrong).

Next time you get one of those spam that sneaks through, run
> spamassassin -D <email >output 2>debug.out

where "email" is the file containing that email and nothing but. Then
the -D output together with the output file will tell us the specific
steps that are followed. We'll know whether SURBL is properly testing
URis in the email, whether Bayes is corrupt, etc.

Those of us with custom rule sets will also be able to run your output
through our SA, and see if we're catching that spam because of custom
rules you don't have installed.

Make sure to attach the output file rather than cut/paste it --
cut/paste destroys information we need for that latter test.

Bob Menschel