At 4:37 PM -0400 06/14/2013, Alex wrote:
I think the only difference would be if spamd somehow didn't recognize
all the locations for your rules. Perhaps create a rule that you know
will hit with a very low score in each directory that contains rules.
Maybe there's a way to run spamd in the foreground with debugging,
like there is with amavisd.
So, I again ran the email through spamassassin manually and, after
restarting spamd, I ran it through spamc/spamd. In both cases, I got
bayes99 hits, along with LONGWORDS and MIME_NO_TEXT. There was a
minor difference in scores and tests between spamassassin and
spamc/spamd (the former got a hit on NO_DNS_FOR_FROM, while the
latter got a hit on DKIM_ADSP_NXDOMAIN), but they were pretty
equivalent for the most part.
So, at least right now, it seems I _should_ be getting the same (or
similar) scores through both methods. I still have no idea why spamd
wouldn't have given bayes99 previously, unless it really was some
sort of change in the rules and spamd needed a restart. (If that's
the case, I'll just add a cron job to reboot spamd daily.)
Though, on that note, why would spamassassin hit on NO_DNS_FOR_FROM
but not DKIM_ADSP_NXDOMAIN, while spamc/spamd would hit on the second
and not the first? They are getting identical input files...
literally (I'm piping the same file into both commands).
Thanks.
--- Amir
