On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 08:49:44PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > > Everything seems to work fine, except for bayes and negative tests when > > run through procmail. Am I missing something obvious? > > Well, there aren't really any negative tests (aka: "nice" tests) anymore due > to forging issues. As for Bayes... If you run with -D it'll shed more light > on the situation.
Good to know - I compiled 2.63 for this box; the last version I was using was ~2.4x, and it still had "nice" tests (I like being rewarded for using mutt :). As for bayes: When I 'cat new_message | spamassassin -D' everything looks good - it identifies all the tokens, gives it a bayes score, and correctly applies the bayes tests. I tried adding the following procmail rule and sending a test message, but I don't get any useful debugging output. Is there another way I can test this? -will :0: * ^Subject: bayestest | spamassassin -D 2>$HOME/tmp/sa.err Yields only this in sa.err: SpamAssassin version 2.63 -- ---------Will [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG encrypted mail preferred. Join the web-o-trust! Key ID: F4332B28
pgpZYNwnyENgY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
