identical messages -- some get bayes score, some don't

Kai Schaetzl maillists at conactive.com
Sat Jan 10 10:31:16 GMT 2009


Cannon Watts wrote on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 15:37:06 -0600 (CST):

> Probably getting beyond the scope of this list, but any tips on debugging
> this?  This particular box is running its own caching DNS that, prior to
> seeing that debugging info, I would have said works perfectly.

look which tests timeout, if it are always the same and then do some manual 
tests against these RBLs.

> How would I go about disabling 'some of these tests'?  set skip_rbl_checks
> in /etc/mamil/spamassassin/mailscanner.cf?

yes (this doesn't shut off URIBL tests).

> I don't understand how permissions could be an issue given the
> circumstances.  SpamAssassin is running as root, and all of these messages
> are in the same mailbox -- it's not as if they're owned by different users.

I didn't know as what user you were running this. You are right it should not 
be an issue then, but still could be when running via MS.

> 
> I did run each message separately through spamassassin -D.  This time they
> all received Bayes scores, with 15 scoring BAYES_50 and 13 scoring BAYES_60.
> All of them generated the dns timeouts, but only 19 of the 28 generated the
> bayes timeout.

But all got a BAYES score. So, there where timeouts but the second or third or 
so try worked. I haven't ever seen this. My first thought would be that too 
many Bayes lookups occur. I don't know how this locking works and I now have 
mostly SQL setups. You may want to move to SQL, this should avoid this, 
anyway. If you can't overcome this problem I'd go to the SA list for further 
help.


> 
> I don't see any suspicious lock files, but then I'm not sure what I'm
> looking for.

A file ending in .lock or lock.hostname in the bayes directory?

> 
> I suppose there could be a performance problem, but considering I just
> moved   this server from a 933 Mhz Pentium with less than a gig of ram
> (where it
> was working reasonably well) to a 2 GHz quad-core w/ 4 GB of RAM and 15k
> rpm disks (where I've never seen the system load go over 0.5), I tend to
> look elsewhere first.

I agree it doesn't look like it should be udnerpowered. But it depends on the 
number of messages you process each day. How many? How long does a 
spamassassin --lint run take? (use time).


Kai

-- 
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com





More information about the MailScanner mailing list