1/2 SpamAssassin 2.61 installed (finally); bugs to mconst.
\_ if you specified "| spamassassin" in your .procmailrc recipe,
please change to "| spamc" instead -- it is lighter weight/faster.
\_ now that sa does bayesian analysis, what are the pros of ifile?
\_ It's the standard.
\_ Who thinks that, other than you? Do you have URL or
anything suggesting that "it's the standard"?
\_ like IDS, it is better to us spam catchers that are NOT
the standard. -phuqm
\_ Spam Assassin rocks... Say goodbye to the Nigerian scam, toner,
FREE VIAGRA, and the lot. Awesome.
\_ Thanks, joshk
\_ 3 days of spam-free inbox and counting. Thank you!
\_ It's only a matter of time before those fuckers figure out how
to get past the filters again.
\_ I'm loving it! It's great, Thanks.
\_ Damnit. My brain immediately coughed up McDonald's. Yay America!
\_ Thanks.
\_ I did this. The next day there was lots of spam and no indication
that spamassassin had been working. I also see nothing via ps
to indicate a spamassassassin-related process running. I'm
switching back to the old executable line because I know it
works.
\_ please don't do that: spamc and spamd work together,
and they are much more efficient. If everybody ran
"| spamassassin" like you do, soda would be really slow.
/usr/local/bin/spamc man spam ps aux | grep spamd
\_ If it worked for me as you have it here, I would use it.
It doesn't, so I don't.
\_ Not to mention, spamc is forked by procmail only at the
receipt of new mail- it's pretty transient. RTFM.
\_ Uh-huh, but spamd or some such should show up via
'ps -aux' regardless.
\_ try 'ps -auxww' you ingrate.
\_ How dare you post useful information! (thanks)
\_ IFile still catches about 50% more of my spam than SA
\_ SA caught 137 spams for me with one false positive.
No spam got through for me. -ausman
\_ I also switched from spamassassin to spamc and there was
no indication it worked. Maybe that's why it's so fast!
\_ spac is a standalone program, no need to call perl
was that your problem? it bit me
that spamassassin had been working. I'm switching back to the old
executable line because I know it works.
\_ Could you please send me mail, so I can try to figure
out what's going wrong? --mconst
\_ I'll try switching to spamc again today. If it appears to
not be working when I check mail tomorrow, I'll mail you
then. Thanks.
\_ okay, here's exactly what you do, put these in your
.procmailrc before your other recipes:
:0fw
| spamc
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
<spam-folder-name>
======================
next if you have any spams that fall through, you sa-learn
to teach SA to filter those. See man sa-learn
\_ two stupid questions:
1. is there a better way to invoke procmail than through .forward?
2. is there a better way to disable the report text with spamc than
spamc -c ?
\_ 1. you don't need .forward at all, just .procmailrc
2. man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf, or just put "report_safe 0" in
~/.spamassassin/user_prefs
\_ 1. what calls procmail then?
2. man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
-> No manual entry for Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
\_ I'm having a problem with sa-learn, it keeps telling me:
soda [34] sa-learn --spam /tmp/uncaughtspam_20040109
Learned from 0 message(s) (1 message(s) examined).
However, I have over 250 spam messages in the file. -gsu
\_ RTFM: "sa-learn --spam --mbox /path/to/mbox"
\_ I RTFM and the man page must be out of date because it says:
Use this tool to teach SpamAssassin about these samples,
like so:
sa-learn --spam /path/to/spam/folder
sa-learn --ham /path/to/ham/folder
Thanks though, because --mbox works.
\_ notice that the example says /path/to/spam/folder, NOT
/path/to/spam/mboxfile. Without --mbox, it's expecting you
to point it to a folder containing each message as a
file. |
http://csua.com/feed/