Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?
On 2/17/2023 8:24 PM, joe a wrote: On 2/17/2023 3:25 PM, joe a wrote: Did a simple test today sending an email from a gmail account to two email accounts on my system. The only difference was the email address, both were on the same "To:" line in the composed messages. They receive wildly different BAYES scores. Try rattling off another Gmail message, but this time switch the two Email addresses on the "To:" line around. Maybe a case where only the first Email address is looked at by SA? Thanks, Jared Hall
Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?
On 2023-02-17 at 22:41:05 UTC-0500 (Fri, 17 Feb 2023 19:41:05 -0800) Loren Wilton is rumored to have said: They receive wildly different BAYES scores. * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0002] * 2.2 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% * [score: 0.0881] This looks like you have per-user Bayes databases, and the messaage type has been trained differently in each. Also, it looks like there are per-user rules, since BAYES_50 has a normal score of 0.2, and there is no reason BAYES_20 (indicating much less spammy) should have a score of 2.2. Absolutely correct. However, that does not prove definitively that there are per-user Bayes DBs & rules, just that the BAYES_20 score is insane. The difference between 8.81% and 00.02% isn't very meaningful. It isn't accidental that SA doesn't have finer categories of Bayes scores. -- Bill Cole b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) Not Currently Available For Hire
Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?
They receive wildly different BAYES scores. * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0002] * 2.2 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% * [score: 0.0881] This looks like you have per-user Bayes databases, and the messaage type has been trained differently in each. Also, it looks like there are per-user rules, since BAYES_50 has a normal score of 0.2, and there is no reason BAYES_20 (indicating much less spammy) should have a score of 2.2.
Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?
On 2/17/2023 3:25 PM, joe a wrote: Did a simple test today sending an email from a gmail account to two email accounts on my system. The only difference was the email address, both were on the same "To:" line in the composed messages. They receive wildly different BAYES scores. -- X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5 (2021-03-20) on myserver X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=4.9 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, IXHASH_X1,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.4.5 X-Spam-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0002] -- X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5 (2021-03-20) on myserver X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.2 required=4.9 tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, IXHASH_X1,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.4.5 X-Spam-Report: * 2.2 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% * [score: 0.0881] -- Just another sign of BAYES wackiness? More evidence of need for rebuild?
Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?
On 2/17/2023 11:44 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 10:54 -0500, joe a wrote: Could it have been that simple? If, like myself, you find reference books useful, you may want to get a copy of "Linux in a Nutshell" - an O'Reilly book. It tends to assume you know at least one other OS fairly well, is well organised and concise. I've also found "Debian Reference" http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ useful for most flavours of Linux (I use Fedora and Raspbian) Martin There was also a "Unix in a Nutshell". I found it amusing, in my NetWare days, to have a copy on my desk and offer it to the Unix-oids that meanered in from time to time, that liked to scoff at "security by obscurity" and those "Puny PC's you call Servers". (That from folks that swore sendmail was forever king and operated the email server as an open relay). A bit of an issue when I offered that the book should be called "Nuts, in a Unix Shell". . . Ah, the memories . . .
Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?
On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 10:54 -0500, joe a wrote: Could it have been that simple? On 17.02.23 16:44, Martin Gregorie wrote: If, like myself, you find reference books useful, you may want to get a copy of "Linux in a Nutshell" - an O'Reilly book. It tends to assume you know at least one other OS fairly well, is well organised and concise. I've also found "Debian Reference" http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ useful for most flavours of Linux (I use Fedora and Raspbian) reading such book is a good idea, but I think this is more a SA bug, @INC containing something that references "." or "..", which it should not, and which causes perl fail when it can't open directory in @INC. (and perl has documented this feature iirc). -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. WinError #98652: Operation completed successfully.
Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?
On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 10:54 -0500, joe a wrote: > Could it have been that simple? > If, like myself, you find reference books useful, you may want to get a copy of "Linux in a Nutshell" - an O'Reilly book. It tends to assume you know at least one other OS fairly well, is well organised and concise. I've also found "Debian Reference" http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ useful for most flavours of Linux (I use Fedora and Raspbian) Martin
Re: Disable reporting to Razor while still reporting to Pyzor
On 31.01.23 18:03, spamassassin.us...@ml.karotte.org wrote: I use spamc -C report to report spam mails. I only want to report them to Pyzor. How do I disable reporting the mails to Razor (which fails anyways as I'm not registered)? looks like it's not configurable. You can submit a (wishlist) bugreport, and you can also setup razor config. I recomment doing the latter, if possible. Also as I see it using spamc -C report also marks the mail as spam in the bayes database, is this correct? There is no documentation about this but the code implies that's what happens. spamc manpage describes -C needs to run spamd with --allow-tell option and spamd manpage says it trains bayes DB as long. note that spamd needs proper permissions to write the database. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Posli tento mail 100 svojim znamim - nech vidia aky si idiot Send this email to 100 your friends - let them see what an idiot you are
Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?
On 2/17/2023 4:42 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 16.02.23 15:57, joe a wrote: Re-energized having recently heroically wrestled an elusive issue (to me) into surrender . . . we now turn to another issue. Probably I need to retrain BAYES "From scratch". I have a mess (years?) of stored sample emails that and be relearned. I understand that sa-learn should be run as the same user as spamd, however I find it has always been run as root and when running as the spamassassin user results in errors, such as: ~su -c "sa-learn --spam /var/mail/spamd/Cabinet.Missed-SPAM" spamfilter results in errors, starting with: plugin: failed to parse plugin (from @INC): Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: Permission denied at (eval 44) line 1. plugin: failed to parse plugin (from @INC): Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AutoLearnThreshold.pm: lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AutoLearnThreshold.pm: Permission denied at (eval 45) line 1. try first changing current working directory into one readable by user "spamfilter", perhaps root (/). Could it have been that simple? Yes, apparently it was. Many thanks. joe a.
Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?
On 2/17/2023 7:37 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 16.02.23 um 23:34 schrieb joe a: I have no idea what you refer to when you state "don't user proper packages". "Proper" in what sense? A rhetorical question. i have no idea how you installed SA but rpm packages or debs usually have correct permissions Oh, of course. I installed as root initially, being foolish perhaps you *must* install software as root because the service *must not* have write permissions to it's own binary files but did create a specific user "later" and adjusted permissions as needed. Or, so I thought the real question was HOW DID YOU INSTALL it from the first day i maintained production servers i learnt to build my own rpm packages - no matter if it's software written in C, PHP or Perl why? * because you get rid of leftover files over the years * permissions are part of te package * the package manager dectects many conflicts One of the first things I learned when assembling things or attempting to learn something new, is to follow the instructions and only attempt to vary from them once you absolutely understood what your were doing. Or, suffer the consequences along with the (rare) accolades for improving a process. That said, I would never "build my own rpm package" in this context. This is almost entirely a "home/office" system that seems low traffic. So, I installed postfix and spamassassin initially from the OS vendor supplied packages. Over the years I applied updates from outside the OS vendor channel, from packages from "authors" sites, as the versions diverged enough to be a concern. There have been some OS updates as well and at least one transfer from one VM to another. All this appears to be digression, to me, the issue, to me, seems to be why root sees the stuff in this @INC entity differently from how the SA user sees it. With the insights and pointers gained in this thread, I hope to solve that sometime soon.
Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?
On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 23:32 +0100, hg user wrote: > root can do anything. a restricted user can't: it's only allowed to do > what > others allowed it. > > it also runs with another environment, so it may miss PATHes or @INC > directories. > You can check this by running env | less from a command line under the appropriate user and making sure that all the environment variables you expect to see defined are, and have the values you expect. Martin
Re: BAYES_00 BODY. Negative score?
On 16.02.23 15:57, joe a wrote: Re-energized having recently heroically wrestled an elusive issue (to me) into surrender . . . we now turn to another issue. Probably I need to retrain BAYES "From scratch". I have a mess (years?) of stored sample emails that and be relearned. I understand that sa-learn should be run as the same user as spamd, however I find it has always been run as root and when running as the spamassassin user results in errors, such as: ~su -c "sa-learn --spam /var/mail/spamd/Cabinet.Missed-SPAM" spamfilter results in errors, starting with: plugin: failed to parse plugin (from @INC): Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SpamCop.pm: Permission denied at (eval 44) line 1. plugin: failed to parse plugin (from @INC): Can't locate Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AutoLearnThreshold.pm: lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/AutoLearnThreshold.pm: Permission denied at (eval 45) line 1. try first changing current working directory into one readable by user "spamfilter", perhaps root (/). -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
