occasional bayes failure

[Greg Matthews]

Glenn Steen wrote:
> Are all the relevant ones using cached results? If so, SA is never run
> on them... That is, after all, the whole point of the SA result
> cache:-).
> Not sure if that could have something to do with it. Perhaps worth
> checking though.

uh... weirder...

actually since fixing the Bayes table, the only ones without a Bayes 
score are indeed cached (good call). However... on the other two relays, 
cached hits are /still/ showing a Bayes score, here is an example:

May 19 16:29:08 mailr-k MailScanner[7257]: Message m4JFT1Jb009726 from 
218.37.8.84 (signs7 at 4hisgloryquartet.com) to nerc.ac.uk is spam, 
SpamAssassin (cached, score=23.389, required 5, autolearn=spam, BAYES_50 
0.00, BOTNET 1.00, DCC_CHECK 1.70, DIGEST_MULTIPLE 0.00, 
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 0.50, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 1.50, 
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 1.50, RAZOR2_CHECK 0.50, 
RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB 0.62, RDNS_NONE 0.10, 
SARE_OEM_A_1 2.00, SARE_OEM_A_2 1.50, STOX_REPLY_TYPE 0.00, 
TVD_FINGER_02 2.13, URIBL_AB_SURBL 1.86, URIBL_BLACK 1.96, 
URIBL_JP_SURBL 1.50, URIBL_OB_SURBL 1.50, URIBL_RHS_DOB 1.08, 
URIBL_SC_SURBL 0.47)

so which is right?

Or perhaps the ones that hit the cache which dont have a Bayes score 
were cached when bayes was still broken... I'll zap the cache and see 
what happens.

thanks Glenn

GREG

> 
> Cheers


-- 
Greg Matthews           01491 692445
Head of UNIX/Linux, iTSS Wallingford

-- 
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.