spamc/spamassassin = different scores

[Kevin Curran <go...@curranfamilynet.net>]

Hello list,

I don't know about you all, but I've been getting a lot of false negatives
that have a hit on the ALL_TRUSTED test.  So, I disabled that test in
local.cf.  Now, I'm running SA on FreeBSD using sendmail and procmail.
When the user's .procmailrc calls spamassassin it seems to honor local.cf.
But when the .procmailrc calls spamc and spamd is running, it seems to
ignore local.cf.

Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on whether
spamassassin or spamc is called.

What's up with that?

Thanks!

Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores

[jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>]

From: "Thomas Arend" <ml...@arend-whv.info>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am Dienstag, 28. Dezember 2004 15:34 schrieb jdow:
> From: "Thomas Arend" <ml...@arend-whv.info>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 22:01 schrieb jdow:
> > From: "Morris Jones" <mo...@whiteoaks.com>
> >
> > > Kevin Curran wrote:
> > > > Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on
> > > > whether spamassassin or spamc is called.
> > > >
> > > > What's up with that?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > You probably need to stop spamd and restart it so it rereads the .cf
> >
> > files.
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Mojo
> >
> > Do remember that just before Christmas break I characterized a vaguely
> > similar problem with spamd. With per user rules enabled any given
> > spamd instance works perfectly the first time. The second time it will
> > appear to pick up the user rules but not the user scores. This is run
> > as the user with "DROPPRIVS" in the .procmailrc or as the user running
> > spanc. It is 100% repeatable here. Fortunately there is at the moment
> > only one user of the two here moved over to the new installation. So
> > moving to a direct spamassassin call seems to have eliminated the
> > problem, for now. I am waiting for someone to say they also can see
> > this effect. Then I'll go to the web (yuck) and file a BK report on it.
> > (I don't trust or like web user interfaces. {^_-})
> >
> > {^_^}
>
> I'm using SuSE 9.1 (latest updates) SA 3.0.2 with postfix, /etc/procmail
> and spamd/spamc. I get exactly the same scores (disregarding the AWL) for
> spamassassin and spamc/spamd.
>
> ---- my comments
> 1) Are you setup for per user rules in the ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs
file?
>    If not set up to do that. And setup a few simple rules and scores you
>    can test with text included in a test file.
> 2) Cut down the -m option for spamd to 1.
> 3) Restart spamd
> 4) Run spamassassin <testfile|more to get baseline scores.
> 5) Run spamc <testfile|more should be same as baseline scores.
> Now the kicker
> 6) Run spamc <testfile|more again. All scores picked up from user_prefs
>    will be 1 rather than the score in the user_prefs file.
>
> For reference I am using postfix not in its customary chroot jail,
> procmail with per user .procmailrc files, and spamd in the .procmailrc.
> But I do not have to send a mail through the whole system to see the
> effect. The above steps bypass most of the mail system and still show
> the effect. I make sure the test file includes strings designed to kick
> off rules. (I have a "JD_CHERRY_POPPED" rule and included "cherry popped"
> in the text I tested. I took a known spam for headers and put in my own
> text to force the user_prefs scores and rules.)
>
> On thinking this over from the description above I wonder if this is
> in some way connected with the growing spamd memory usage. Spamd does
> grow after the first run. I didn't look after the second. (I could if
> it's important.) It acted as if it thought it already had my scores
> and rules memorized. Yet it had forgotten the scores. It should have
> forgotten my rules, too. Then a second user would not have his mail
> contaminated by my rules. (Boys aren't as bothered by porn. {^_-})
>
> {^_^}

Hello again,

I can't reproduce this effect. For me all works fine. Scores are the same at
any time. But maybe I have not so much spam. So I have definitly on memory
shortage.

Thomas

< OK, that suggests something, I'm not sure what. I have a gigabyte of
< memory with a lot of it free. So it isn't a memory problem.

{O.O}

Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores

[Thomas Arend <ml...@arend-whv.info>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am Dienstag, 28. Dezember 2004 15:34 schrieb jdow:
> From: "Thomas Arend" <ml...@arend-whv.info>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 22:01 schrieb jdow:
> > From: "Morris Jones" <mo...@whiteoaks.com>
> >
> > > Kevin Curran wrote:
> > > > Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on
> > > > whether spamassassin or spamc is called.
> > > >
> > > > What's up with that?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > You probably need to stop spamd and restart it so it rereads the .cf
> >
> > files.
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Mojo
> >
> > Do remember that just before Christmas break I characterized a vaguely
> > similar problem with spamd. With per user rules enabled any given
> > spamd instance works perfectly the first time. The second time it will
> > appear to pick up the user rules but not the user scores. This is run
> > as the user with "DROPPRIVS" in the .procmailrc or as the user running
> > spanc. It is 100% repeatable here. Fortunately there is at the moment
> > only one user of the two here moved over to the new installation. So
> > moving to a direct spamassassin call seems to have eliminated the
> > problem, for now. I am waiting for someone to say they also can see
> > this effect. Then I'll go to the web (yuck) and file a BK report on it.
> > (I don't trust or like web user interfaces. {^_-})
> >
> > {^_^}
>
> I'm using SuSE 9.1 (latest updates) SA 3.0.2 with postfix, /etc/procmail
> and spamd/spamc. I get exactly the same scores (disregarding the AWL) for
> spamassassin and spamc/spamd.
>
> ---- my comments
> 1) Are you setup for per user rules in the ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs file?
>    If not set up to do that. And setup a few simple rules and scores you
>    can test with text included in a test file.
> 2) Cut down the -m option for spamd to 1.
> 3) Restart spamd
> 4) Run spamassassin <testfile|more to get baseline scores.
> 5) Run spamc <testfile|more should be same as baseline scores.
> Now the kicker
> 6) Run spamc <testfile|more again. All scores picked up from user_prefs
>    will be 1 rather than the score in the user_prefs file.
>
> For reference I am using postfix not in its customary chroot jail,
> procmail with per user .procmailrc files, and spamd in the .procmailrc.
> But I do not have to send a mail through the whole system to see the
> effect. The above steps bypass most of the mail system and still show
> the effect. I make sure the test file includes strings designed to kick
> off rules. (I have a "JD_CHERRY_POPPED" rule and included "cherry popped"
> in the text I tested. I took a known spam for headers and put in my own
> text to force the user_prefs scores and rules.)
>
> On thinking this over from the description above I wonder if this is
> in some way connected with the growing spamd memory usage. Spamd does
> grow after the first run. I didn't look after the second. (I could if
> it's important.) It acted as if it thought it already had my scores
> and rules memorized. Yet it had forgotten the scores. It should have
> forgotten my rules, too. Then a second user would not have his mail
> contaminated by my rules. (Boys aren't as bothered by porn. {^_-})
>
> {^_^}

Hello again,

I can't reproduce this effect. For me all works fine. Scores are the same at 
any time. But maybe I have not so much spam. So I have definitly on memory 
shortage.

Thomas
- -- 
icq:133073900
aim:tawhv
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB0XkCHe2ZLU3NgHsRAtsAAJ92bExc+ffUNg93jCFvAl1gL+3/YwCdENfW
gQhNGzmiM9i9kdBDqY9lf9c=
=rFKT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores

[jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>]

From: "Thomas Arend" <ml...@arend-whv.info>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 22:01 schrieb jdow:
> From: "Morris Jones" <mo...@whiteoaks.com>
>
> > Kevin Curran wrote:
> > > Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on
> > > whether spamassassin or spamc is called.
> > >
> > > What's up with that?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > You probably need to stop spamd and restart it so it rereads the .cf
>
> files.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Mojo
>
> Do remember that just before Christmas break I characterized a vaguely
> similar problem with spamd. With per user rules enabled any given
> spamd instance works perfectly the first time. The second time it will
> appear to pick up the user rules but not the user scores. This is run
> as the user with "DROPPRIVS" in the .procmailrc or as the user running
> spanc. It is 100% repeatable here. Fortunately there is at the moment
> only one user of the two here moved over to the new installation. So
> moving to a direct spamassassin call seems to have eliminated the
> problem, for now. I am waiting for someone to say they also can see
> this effect. Then I'll go to the web (yuck) and file a BK report on it.
> (I don't trust or like web user interfaces. {^_-})
>
> {^_^}

I'm using SuSE 9.1 (latest updates) SA 3.0.2 with postfix, /etc/procmail and
spamd/spamc. I get exactly the same scores (disregarding the AWL) for
spamassassin and spamc/spamd.

---- my comments
1) Are you setup for per user rules in the ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs file?
   If not set up to do that. And setup a few simple rules and scores you
   can test with text included in a test file.
2) Cut down the -m option for spamd to 1.
3) Restart spamd
4) Run spamassassin <testfile|more to get baseline scores.
5) Run spamc <testfile|more should be same as baseline scores.
Now the kicker
6) Run spamc <testfile|more again. All scores picked up from user_prefs
   will be 1 rather than the score in the user_prefs file.

For reference I am using postfix not in its customary chroot jail,
procmail with per user .procmailrc files, and spamd in the .procmailrc.
But I do not have to send a mail through the whole system to see the
effect. The above steps bypass most of the mail system and still show
the effect. I make sure the test file includes strings designed to kick
off rules. (I have a "JD_CHERRY_POPPED" rule and included "cherry popped"
in the text I tested. I took a known spam for headers and put in my own
text to force the user_prefs scores and rules.)

On thinking this over from the description above I wonder if this is
in some way connected with the growing spamd memory usage. Spamd does
grow after the first run. I didn't look after the second. (I could if
it's important.) It acted as if it thought it already had my scores
and rules memorized. Yet it had forgotten the scores. It should have
forgotten my rules, too. Then a second user would not have his mail
contaminated by my rules. (Boys aren't as bothered by porn. {^_-})

{^_^}

Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores

[Thomas Arend <ml...@arend-whv.info>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 22:01 schrieb jdow:
> From: "Morris Jones" <mo...@whiteoaks.com>
>
> > Kevin Curran wrote:
> > > Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on
> > > whether spamassassin or spamc is called.
> > >
> > > What's up with that?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > You probably need to stop spamd and restart it so it rereads the .cf
>
> files.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Mojo
>
> Do remember that just before Christmas break I characterized a vaguely
> similar problem with spamd. With per user rules enabled any given
> spamd instance works perfectly the first time. The second time it will
> appear to pick up the user rules but not the user scores. This is run
> as the user with "DROPPRIVS" in the .procmailrc or as the user running
> spanc. It is 100% repeatable here. Fortunately there is at the moment
> only one user of the two here moved over to the new installation. So
> moving to a direct spamassassin call seems to have eliminated the
> problem, for now. I am waiting for someone to say they also can see
> this effect. Then I'll go to the web (yuck) and file a BK report on it.
> (I don't trust or like web user interfaces. {^_-})
>
> {^_^}

I'm using SuSE 9.1 (latest updates) SA 3.0.2 with postfix, /etc/procmail and 
spamd/spamc. I get exactly the same scores (disregarding the AWL) for 
spamassassin and spamc/spamd. 

Thomas
- -- 
icq:133073900
aim:tawhv



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB0TVwHe2ZLU3NgHsRAmFsAJ4mXt19fw964EBtWb2vtgoOVQuD1gCfQyHE
6M2ErC1I6lxB17y6W52CcxU=
=4AxT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores

[jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>]

From: "Morris Jones" <mo...@whiteoaks.com>

> Kevin Curran wrote:
> > Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on whether
> > spamassassin or spamc is called.
> >
> > What's up with that?
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> You probably need to stop spamd and restart it so it rereads the .cf
files.
>
> Cheers,
> Mojo

Do remember that just before Christmas break I characterized a vaguely
similar problem with spamd. With per user rules enabled any given
spamd instance works perfectly the first time. The second time it will
appear to pick up the user rules but not the user scores. This is run
as the user with "DROPPRIVS" in the .procmailrc or as the user running
spanc. It is 100% repeatable here. Fortunately there is at the moment
only one user of the two here moved over to the new installation. So
moving to a direct spamassassin call seems to have eliminated the
problem, for now. I am waiting for someone to say they also can see
this effect. Then I'll go to the web (yuck) and file a BK report on it.
(I don't trust or like web user interfaces. {^_-})

{^_^}

Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores

[Morris Jones <mo...@whiteoaks.com>]

Kevin Curran wrote:
> Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on whether
> spamassassin or spamc is called.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> Thanks!

You probably need to stop spamd and restart it so it rereads the .cf files.

Cheers,
Mojo
-- 
Morris Jones
Monrovia, CA
http://www.whiteoaks.com
Old Town Astronomers:  http://www.otastro.org

Re: spamc/spamassassin = different scores

[Thomas Arend <ml...@arend-whv.info>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am Montag, 27. Dezember 2004 08:08 schrieb Kevin Curran:
> Hello list,
>
> I don't know about you all, 

Well, we don't no anything about your installation.

> but I've been getting a lot of false negatives 
> that have a hit on the ALL_TRUSTED test.  So, I disabled that test in
> local.cf.  Now, I'm running SA on FreeBSD using sendmail and procmail.
> When the user's .procmailrc calls spamassassin it seems to honor local.cf.
> But when the .procmailrc calls spamc and spamd is running, it seems to
> ignore local.cf.

1. Which Version do you use?
2 Can you send an example which shows the difference you mean.
3. How do you start spamd? There are options which enable or disable some 
tests. So it's not unusal to get different scores.

> Tests show that an email will get a different score depending on whether
> spamassassin or spamc is called.

3. How do you start spamd? There are options which enable or disable some 
tests. So it's not unusal to get different scores. 

4. How do you call spammassassin? 

5. Do you call it with the same userid?

6. When different userids is bayes turned ON or OFF? Network tests turn ON or 
OFF?


BTW: A good question and full accout of the circumstances leads mostly to 
precise answers. :-) My magical eye is lost somewhere.

Thomas

[..]
- -- 
icq:133073900
aim:tawhv
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBz+lSHe2ZLU3NgHsRAnWWAJ43rkZ+xuQkxuNOOT4XHn/Y4kOeYQCfTlQD
9ufrGNayuH7gCePA/i2uq9U=
=kj4x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

RE: spamc/spamassassin = different scores

[martin smith <ma...@ntlworld.com>]

 

|-----Original Message-----
|From: Kevin Curran [mailto:google_this@curranfamilynet.net] 
|Sent: 27 December 2004 07:09
|To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
|Subject: spamc/spamassassin = different scores
|
|Hello list,
|
|I don't know about you all, but I've been getting a lot of 
|false negatives that have a hit on the ALL_TRUSTED test.  So, 
|I disabled that test in local.cf.  Now, I'm running SA on 
|FreeBSD using sendmail and procmail.
|When the user's .procmailrc calls spamassassin it seems to 
|honor local.cf.
|But when the .procmailrc calls spamc and spamd is running, it 
|seems to ignore local.cf.
|
|Tests show that an email will get a different score depending 
|on whether spamassassin or spamc is called.
|
|What's up with that?
|
|Thanks!
|

It sounds like you didn't restart spamd after you changed the local.cf file.

Martin