mailscanner/spamassassin strangeness

Quentin Campbell Q.G.Campbell at NEWCASTLE.AC.UK
Wed Jan 30 12:30:31 GMT 2002


Julian

We run the same combination and I have noticed a similar problem very
occasionally. I will try to capture some more examples.

Not sure what we can do with these examples though (or if I should have
them at all) if we have RIPA looking over our shoulders!

As a BTW, with the increased processing load imposed by the changes you
made in 3.04-1, we have had to postpone the roll-out of SpamAssassin to
our busy Mail Hubs. They are now struggling to hanle the incoming mail
load as it is.

However it is recognised here that MailScanner and uvscan (and
SpamAssassin) are essential tools so we will be able to upgrade the
platforms (currently  400MHz Ultra-5_10's with 384MB) once we have
identified suitable hardware. 

Quentin
---
PHONE: +44 191 222 8209    Computing Service, University of Newcastle
FAX:   +44 191 222 8765    Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, NE1 7RU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any opinion expressed above is mine. The University can get its own."  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Field [mailto:jkf at ecs.soton.ac.uk] 
> Sent: 30 January 2002 11:32
> To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: mailscanner/spamassassin strangeness
> 
> 
> At 09:07 30/01/2002, you wrote:
> >I have mailscanner 3.04.1 and spamassassin 2.01. I had a 
> message this 
> >morning which mailscanner marked as spam because 
> spamassassin said 13 
> >hits. I thought it was odd because the message wasn't spam 
> and didn't 
> >really look spammish. I saved the message to a file and ran 
> >spamassassin -t on it. The score was:
> >SPAM: Content analysis details:   (0.8 hits, 5 required)
> >SPAM: Hit! (0.8 points)  BODY: Includes a URL link to send 
> an email Can 
> >anyone suggest why spamassassin told mailscanner there were 13 hits 
> >when spamassassin -t doesn't even manage a whole one?
> 
> This is a symptom of a long-running SpamAssassin bug where 
> their Perl API occasionally gives different results to other 
> ways of calling SA. I've yet to be able to reproduce the 
> problem reliably. The only other possibility is that the 
> rules that the user root is using are different from the 
> default rules. You haven't been tweaking SA config files 
> madly have you?
> --
> Julian Field                Teaching Systems Manager
> jkf at ecs.soton.ac.uk         Dept. of Electronics & Computer Science
> Tel. 023 8059 2817          University of Southampton
>                              Southampton SO17 1BJ
> 



More information about the MailScanner mailing list