On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:40:49 -0600 David Jones wrote: > On 01/04/2018 10:04 AM, RW wrote:
> > Are you sure that's right? It's a radically different frequency from > > 0.5% and 0.8%. IIWY I'd look at the 4 and check they are what you > > think they are and not something like > > > > My production MailScanner instance has a highly tuned MTA in front of > it so SA doesn't see as much spam. The amavis instance is > intentionally open to more spam to collect for the nightly masscheck > processing. That's not obviously relevant since I was referring to the frequency of mails missing BAYES_99 within emails hitting BAYES_999. > > ... rules: meta test FOO has dependency 'BAYES_999' with a zero > > score > > If I had BAYES_99 set to a zero score, it would never show up in my > logs. As I said, they are bogus warnings. I think it's a known issue. I have BAYES_999 scored and I get 3 such matches per spamd restart using your grep patterns. Your 4 seem highly suspicious. Until you manually check those 4, or retry with better grep patterns, you don't really know what's happening.
