Mailing List Archive

On Sat, 13 Mar 2021, Steve Dondley wrote:

> I *think* I now I have site-wide bayes filtering working now for all users on
> a server. I've edited /etc/spamassassin/local.cf to include "bayes_path" and
> "bayes_file_mode" and I don't see any errors about permissions being wrong
> from debian-spamd in mail.log.
>
> But rather than guessing, I'm wondering if there is there a way I can
> objectively confirm that email for a particular user is getting checked
> against the site-wide bayes database. Thanks.

Are there any BAYES hits on their messages, ham or spam? BAYES_{not 50}
would be a positive confirmation. I'm not sure offhand if BAYES_50 hits
when bayes is enabled but insufficiently trained...


--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to plan ahead on someone else's part does not constitute
an emergency on my part. -- David W. Barts in a.s.r
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomorrow: Daylight Saving Time begins in U.S. - Spring Forward

> Are there any BAYES hits on their messages, ham or spam? BAYES_{not
> 50} would be a positive confirmation. I'm not sure offhand if BAYES_50
> hits when bayes is enabled but insufficiently trained...

In one email, I'm seeing this:

3.0 BAYES_95 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 95 to 99%

So I guess it's working. It looks like it got scored +3 points for
having a greater than 95% probability of being spam according to the
Bayes algorithm.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:22:53 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:


> I'm not sure offhand if BAYES_50 hits when bayes is enabled but
> insufficiently trained...

It doesn't.

On 2021-03-13 21:08, RW wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:22:53 -0800 (PST)
> John Hardin wrote:

>> I'm not sure offhand if BAYES_50 hits when bayes is enabled but
>> insufficiently trained...
>
> It doesn't.

it could be added so when its not trained show its needs more data

meta BAYES_NOT_TRAINED (!BAYES_00 || !BAYES_05 || !BAYES_20 || !BAYES_40
|| !BAYES_50 || !BAYES_60 || !BAYES_80 || !BAYES_95 || !BAYES_99 ||
!BAYES_999)
describe BAYES_NOT_TRAINED Meta: bayes needs more data
score BAYES_NOT_TRAINED -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1

should work if needed