Apologies for resurrecting the thread, but I never did receive a response to this particular aspect of the problem (asked on Jan 18, 2013, 8:51 AM). This is probably because I replied to my own post before anyone else did, and changed the subject slightly.
We are being hammered pretty hard with spam (again), and as I inspect messages whose score is below tag2_level, BAYES_* is conspicuously absent from the headers. To reiterate my question: >> Are there any normal circumstances under which Bayes tests are not run? If not, are there circumstances under which Bayes tests are run but their results are not included in the message headers? (I have tag_level set to -999, so SA headers are always added.) Likewise, for the vast majority of spam messages that slip-through, I see no evidence of Pyzor or Razor2 activity. I have heretofore assumed that this observation indicates that the network tests were performed, but did not contribute to the SA score. Is this assumption valid? Also, is there some means by which to *force* Pyzor and Razor2 scores to be added to the SA header, even if they did not contribute to the score? To refresh folks' memories, we have verified that Bayes is setup correctly (database was wiped and now training is done manually and is supervised), and that network tests are being performed when messages are scanned. Thanks for sticking with me through all of this, guys! -Ben On 1/18/2013 11:51 AM, Ben Johnson wrote: > So, I've been keeping an eye on things again today. > > Overall, things look pretty good, and most spam is being blocked > outright at the MTA and scored appropriately in SA if not. > > I've been inspecting the X-Spam-Status headers for the handful of > messages that do slip through and noticed that most of them lack any > evidence of the BAYES_* tests. Here's one such header: > > No, score=3.115 tagged_above=-999 required=4.5 tests=[HK_NAME_FREE=1, > HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, PYZOR_CHECK=1.392, > SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled > > The messages that were delivered just before and after this one do have > evidence of BAYES_* tests, so, it's not as though something is > completely broken. > > Are there any normal circumstances under which Bayes tests are not run? > Do I need to turn debugging back on and wait until this happens again? > > Thanks for all the help, everyone! > > -Ben >
