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

Re: Kmail and spamassasin bayes rule.

On Tuesday 29 August 2006 06:17 pm, Raúl Sánchez Siles wrote:
>   Hello:
> <intro>
>   After some thiking I finally decided to move from Thunderbird to
> Kmail. This was some months ago. After some problems with the mail
> solved by kmailcvt and others[1] I made kmail work with no problems.
>   Then I tried to configure spamassasin so that kmail could manage
> spam. After testing some time, I noticed that I was quite happy with
> the TB simple bayes spam filter. I know that there are also some
> simple bayes filter that work with kmail (e.g.: bogofilter) but I
> thought that since SA is well known to be the best and the most used
> spam filter I decided for it.
> </intro>
>   I have it configured and runs quite well, but it seems for me that
> the bayes training (sa-learn) is not working properly. As the wizard
> defines I have a rule for spam and another for ham. both at the end
> of the filter pipeline so they are never run automatically, instead
> of that I have some icons on the main bar for that.
>   The spam rule action is this: sa-learn -L --spam --no-sync
>   The ham rule action is this: sa-learn -L --ham --no-sync
>   After some training I have the impression that this is not working
> properly and my suspicion is that kmail is not passing the whole
> e-mail to sa-learn so that it could learn the tokens.
>   I did a simple script and used it as command and that confirmed me
> that little suspicion, but on the contrary you could read in the
> kmail manual[2] subsection "Execute action" that the e-mail is send
> through stdin. Can you confirm this?
>   Sorry if this has been too long, Thank you.
> [1] http://kmail.kde.org/unsupported/mozilla2kmail.pl
> [2] http://kmail.kde.org/manual/filters.html#filter-action
I don't know how helpful this would be for you, but bogofilter is very 
good as well, and it works fine with KMail.
Matt Sicker

Attachment: pgpR8LBn3w4Vc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: