MS and SA diuffer

[Randal, Phil]

It was this sort of problem which led me to find the bug I reported
earlier.

If you have

  Max Spamassassin Size = nnk  (e.g. 40k)

change it to

  Max Spamassassin Size = nn000 (e.g. 40000)

and see if that helps.

Cheers,

Phil


--
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info 
> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf 
> Of Anthony Peacock
> Sent: 06 October 2006 12:37
> To: MailScanner discussion
> Subject: Re: MS and SA diuffer
> 
> Hi Alex,
> 
> Alex Broens wrote:
> > On 10/6/2006 6:53 AM, Garry Glendown wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I've just set up FuzzyOCR to take care of the Image spam that has
> >> increased recently ... after still receiving untagged 
> stock spam, I've
> >> checked into the scores and stuff and noticed on a test 
> message, that MS
> >> has a lot less rule hits (and therefore less score points) 
> than when
> >> calling spamassassin directly ...
> >>
> >> Here's what I got originally from MS:
> >>
> >> X-nethinks-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin 
> (Wertung=3.905,
> >>     benoetigt 5, HTML_10_20 1.35, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32 1.05,
> >>     HTML_MESSAGE 0.00, MIME_HTML_ONLY 0.00, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO 1.50)
> >>
> >> whereas the -t run from SA resulted in:
> >>
> >> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=25.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99,
> >>  
> FORGED_RCVD_HELO,FUZZY_OCR,HTML_10_20,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32,HTML_MESSAGE,
> >>         MIME_HTML_ONLY,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,SARE_GIF_ATTACH 
> autolearn=no
> >>
> >> MailScanner.conf points to the right SA directory
> >> (/etc/mail/spamassassin), there ARE image spams that get 
> tagged with the
> >> OCR-tags, so I don't really get it why the scoring differs 
> this much ...
> >> also with the Bayes score ... none on MS, 99 on SA ... !?
> >>
> >> I'm still running MS 4.50, SA is 3.1.5 ...
> >>
> >> Any idea where I could look for the cause of this?
> > 
> > I know I'l be tarred & feathered by this comment (once again):
> > 
> > I'd bet its because MS only sent part of the whole msg thru SA and 
> > cutoff too early & missed the attached images.
> > 
> > You may have to increase the value in "Max SpamAssassin 
> Size" to catch 
> > them.
> > 
> > Alex
> 
> No tar and feathers, but I do think that you are wrong in your 
> assumption in this case. :-)
> 
> 
> There are lots of rules different between the two tests that can't be 
> explained by a truncated message being passed to SA.
> 
> AWL, BAYES, RCVD_ tests for instance.
> 
> To me this suggests that the SpamAssassin tests were run as a 
> different 
> user than the user that MailScanner runs as.  So it picks up 
> the BAYES 
> databases and the AWL databases.  It might also be that some 
> tests are 
> being disabled in the MS setup.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anthony Peacock
> CHIME, Royal Free & University College Medical School
> WWW:    http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/
> "If you have an apple and I have  an apple and we  exchange apples
> then you and I will still each have  one apple. But  if you have an
> idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us
> will have two ideas." -- George Bernard Shaw
> -- 
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
> 
> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
> 
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website! 
>