[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dueling banjos

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:

> > I think the Problem is not the score which I could easily adjust but that
> > DEBIAN_BANJOS is not even mentioned in the X-Spam-Status.
> > When looking at the header I can't see the X-Mailing-List value
> > set.  Perhaps this is the reason for not catching the DEBIAN_BANJOS?
> Hmm, weird.  It works here.  Running SA over the original message gives:
> > [bas@matilda]/tmp> spamassassin -t < banjo
> > [...]
> > Content analysis details:   (5.3 points, 4.6 required)
> >
> >  pts rule name              description
> > ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
> >  5.0 DEBIAN_BANJOS          Stupid fuck asking about Dueling Banjos on a Debian list
> >  0.3 UPPERCASE_25_50        message body is 25-50% uppercase
This is really weird because when just running spamassassin -t as you
did it is catched.  (Sorry for the German locale):

Inhaltsanalyse im Detail:   (289.1 Punkte, 5.0 benötigt)

Pnkt Regelname              Beschreibung
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-4.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Spamwahrscheinlichkeit nach Bayes-Test: 0-1%
                            [score: 0.0000]
-6.0 USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO   Empfängeradresse ist in Parameter "whitelist_to" aufgelistet
 300 DEBIAN_BANJOS          Stupid fuck asking about Dueling Banjos on a Debian list

(The other points you've got are not in here because I just checked your last
mail. ;-) )

But if I try to foreward this very same file to my mailbox using

     procmail < banjo

it reaches my debian-devel folder with

X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
        USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO autolearn=no version=2.60

There must be a difference between spamassassin -t and this part of
my .procmail script:

| /usr/bin/spamc

* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes

        * ^TO.*debian-devel

But I have no idea what's the difference here. :-(

BTW, the only fals positives I've got after tuning my user_prefs where
caused by AWL and I have no idea what this means.  I have got a fine
Mail from a mailinglist (userlinux) marked as:

   Content analysis details:   (41.8 points, 5.0 required)

    pts rule name              description
   ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
   -4.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
                               [score: 0.0000]
    1.5 PLING_PLING            Subject has lots of exclamation marks
     45 AWL                    AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment

I only found sparse documentation about this "Auto"-whitelist feature
which sometimes adds and sometimes removes scores.  Even if it is off topic
for this list, could you give some hint (perhaps to some relevant docs)
how to prevent these false positives.

Kind regards


Reply to: