From: "Vicki Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> We allow user rules. (Please don't argue with me about this. It's a very
> small site and yes, we do trust our users.)
>
> The following are in my .spamassassin/user_prefs
> header CF_SUB_UID Subject =~ /vlb|Vicki/i
> score CF_SUB_UID 4.0
> describe CF_SUB_UID Subject: contains my ID
> header CF_NOT_FOR_ME ToCc !~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
> score CF_NOT_FOR_ME 3.0
> describe CF_NOT_FOR_ME Neither To nor Cc me
>
> Here are the headers from a piece of spam
>
> X-Spam-Flag: YES
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on cfcl.com
> X-Spam-Level: *****
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.0 required=0.5 tests=CF_NOT_FOR_ME,CF_SUB_UID,
> FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=no version=3.0.2
> X-Spam-Report:
> * 1.0 CF_SUB_UID Subject: contains my ID
> * 1.0 CF_NOT_FOR_ME Neither To nor Cc me
> * 3.0 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
>
>
> What am I doing wrong? My tests are running. But why are my tests scoring
> only 1.0 and not the score I specify?
>
> Does anyone see something really lame I'm missing?
Unfortunately not. There is a bug in 3.0.x through the current 3.0.2
which causes this effect. The work arounds are ugly++ to say the least.
They mostly consume processor cycles.
What happens is that the first time a given spamd child runs it works
right. Each time afterwards that it runs it fails to pick up local
scores even though it pucks up the local rules. You might make it work
by limiting each child to running only once.
The two solutions I have used here rely special and very special
circumstances. The first solution is to simply use "spamassassin"
rather than "spamc/spamd". The second solution for a single user
spamassassin setup is to role the user rules into the main rule
space and live with it that way. That's what I am doing at the
moment because the would be other user on the machine prefers the
2.64 install on a second box we have. (He needs some of the reporting
that 2.63 implements and 3.0.2 does not. I must admit I am not all
that impressed by 3.0.2 as compared to the well tuned 2.64 on the
other machine. There is not a big enough improvement to really push
a switch over "for real." In some ways 3.0 series seems like a
serious downgrade. But that's IMOAO and YMMV most assuredly applies.)
{^_^}
