Networking

NAVIGATION
CATEGORIES
REFERRENCE
LINKS
  • analysing the logs

    11 answers - 382 bytes - related search similar search Add To My Delicious Add To My Stumble Upon Add To My Google Mark Add To My Facebook Add To My Digg Add To My Reddit

    Using spamd started from .procmailrc, it logs to syslog and ends up in
    /var/log/mail.log, along with postfix's log and courier-imap's log.
    How can I get some analysis of this?, eg positives per day, etc.
    Have googled a bit, and looked in the archives, a lot of people talk
    about their stats, not many messages show the commands they use to get
    them!
  • No.1 | | 942 bytes | |

    From: "Nick Rout" <nick (AT) rout (DOT) co.nz>

    Using spamd started from .procmailrc, it logs to syslog and ends up in
    /var/log/mail.log, along with postfix's log and courier-imap's log.

    How can I get some analysis of this?, eg positives per day, etc.

    Have googled a bit, and looked in the archives, a lot of people talk
    about their stats, not many messages show the commands they use to get
    them!

    If you have a normal distro the nice set of tools that comes with
    SpamAssassin are likely not there. With a cpan install there are
    some interesting tools in /

    A different tool, sadly named the same as one of the official tools,
    that I like better was done by Dallas Engelken. It is carefully hidden
    where nobody can find it at:

    Rename it to goodsa-stats.pl or something. It is quite informative
    about what rules are hitting on ham or spam.

    {^_^}
  • No.2 | | 678 bytes | |

    Hello,

    Since upgrading to 3.14, when I turn on bayes auto-learn with:

    bayes_auto_learn1

    and I set the learn boundaries with:

    -3.5
    15.5

    I get unexpected auto-learning. Example: I just saw a spam come
    through that scored 9.9, which is enough for it to be tagged as spam,
    but it should not be auto-learned as spam. But, in the header it
    clearly reads:

    X-Spam-Status:
    Yes, score=9.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99,
    DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,DCC_CHECK,DIGEST_MULTIPLE,HTML_ 40_50,HTML_MESSAGE,
    MIME_HTMLNLY,RAZR2_CHECK,RCVD_IN_WHIS_INVALID autolearn=spam
    version=3.1.4

    Any ideas?

    Thanks,
    Devin
  • No.3 | | 678 bytes | |

    Hello,

    Since upgrading to 3.14, when I turn on bayes auto-learn with:

    bayes_auto_learn1

    and I set the learn boundaries with:

    -3.5
    15.5

    I get unexpected auto-learning. Example: I just saw a spam come
    through that scored 9.9, which is enough for it to be tagged as spam,
    but it should not be auto-learned as spam. But, in the header it
    clearly reads:

    X-Spam-Status:
    Yes, score=9.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99,
    DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,DCC_CHECK,DIGEST_MULTIPLE,HTML_ 40_50,HTML_MESSAGE,
    MIME_HTMLNLY,RAZR2_CHECK,RCVD_IN_WHIS_INVALID autolearn=spam
    version=3.1.4

    Any ideas?

    Thanks,
    Devin
  • No.4 | | 341 bytes | |

    From: <lists (AT) zeta (DOT) net>

    Hello,

    Since upgrading to 3.14, when I turn on bayes auto-learn with:

    bayes_auto_learn 1

    and I set the learn boundaries with:
    -3.5

    This doesn't answer your question. But, I suspect a -3.5 here will
    all but turn off learning on ham.

    {o.o}
  • No.5 | | 1652 bytes | |

    lists (AT) zeta (DOT) net wrote:
    Hello,

    Since upgrading to 3.14, when I turn on bayes auto-learn with:

    bayes_auto_learn 1

    and I set the learn boundaries with:

    -3.5
    15.5

    I get unexpected auto-learning. Example: I just saw a spam come
    through that scored 9.9, which is enough for it to be tagged as spam,
    but it should not be auto-learned as spam. But, in the header it
    clearly reads:

    X-Spam-Status:
    Yes, score=9.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99,
    DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,DCC_CHECK,DIGEST_MULTIPLE,HTML_ 40_50,HTML_MESSAGE,
    MIME_HTMLNLY,RAZR2_CHECK,RCVD_IN_WHIS_INVALID autolearn=spam
    version=3.1.4
    --
    Any ideas?
    SA does not autolearn based on the final message score. So, toss the 9.9
    out the window. That's not the number SA compares to the 15.5.

    For learning SA uses what the message score would have been if: 1) the
    AWL is off. 2) Bayes was disabled, including shifting what scoreset is
    used for all the other rules. 3) all white/blacklists are disabled. This
    is often *quite* different from the final score.

    However, in this case I don't entirely understand The default SA 3.1
    scores are:

    score DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 0.736 0 1.122 0.478
    score DCC_CHECK 0 1.37 0 2.17
    score DIGEST_MULTIPLE 0 0.233 0 0.765
    score HTML_40_50 0.611 0 0.497 0.496
    score HTML_MESSAGE 0.001
    score MIME_HTMLNLY 0.414 0.001 0.389 0.001
    score RAZR2_CHECK 0 0.5 0 0.5
    score RCVD_IN_WHIS_INVALID 0 2.151 0 2.234

    Adding the set1 scores up, the learning score should have been 4.753.

    Have you modified any rule scores?
  • No.6 | | 2516 bytes | |

    >Since upgrading to 3.14, when I turn on bayes auto-learn with:
    >>

    >bayes_auto_learn 1
    >>

    >and I set the learn boundaries with:
    >>

    >-3.5
    >15.5
    >>

    >I get unexpected auto-learning. Example: I just saw a spam come
    >through that scored 9.9, which is enough for it to be tagged as spam,
    >but it should not be auto-learned as spam. But, in the header it
    >clearly reads:
    >>

    >X-Spam-Status:
    >Yes, score=9.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99,
    >DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,DCC_CHECK,DIGEST_MULTIPLE,HTML_ 40_50,HTML_MESSAGE,
    >MIME_HTMLNLY,RAZR2_CHECK,RCVD_IN_WHIS_INVALID autolearn=spam
    >version=3.1.4
    >>
    >>

    >Any ideas?

    SA does not autolearn based on the final message score. So, toss
    the 9.9
    out the window. That's not the number SA compares to the 15.5.

    For learning SA uses what the message score would have been if: 1) the
    AWL is off. 2) Bayes was disabled, including shifting what scoreset is
    used for all the other rules. 3) all white/blacklists are disabled.
    This
    is often *quite* different from the final score.

    However, in this case I don't entirely understand The default SA
    3.1
    scores are:

    score DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 0.736 0 1.122 0.478
    score DCC_CHECK 0 1.37 0 2.17
    score DIGEST_MULTIPLE 0 0.233 0 0.765
    score HTML_40_50 0.611 0 0.497 0.496
    score HTML_MESSAGE 0.001
    score MIME_HTMLNLY 0.414 0.001 0.389 0.001
    score RAZR2_CHECK 0 0.5 0 0.5
    score RCVD_IN_WHIS_INVALID 0 2.151 0 2.234

    Adding the set1 scores up, the learning score should have been 4.753.

    Have you modified any rule scores?

    Thanks for trying to help Matt. No, I don't think I have changed any
    of those scores. I understand the basics of how the autolearn
    works. For a long time, with the settings above, it would usually
    only autolearn spams with extremely high scores (well over 15). Now,
    basically EVERY mail tagged as spam is being autolearned as spam
    whether it has scored 30 or 5.2. The other weird issue is that
    anything that is not being tagged as spam is also being autolearned
    as ham. (i.e. mails with scores of 3.5) which is absolutely not
    what I want.

    Thanks,
    Devin
  • No.7 | | 2426 bytes | |

    Aug 24, 2006, at 10:11 AM, lists (AT) zeta (DOT) net wrote:

    Since upgrading to 3.14, when I turn on bayes auto-learn with:

    bayes_auto_learn 1

    and I set the learn boundaries with:

    -3.5
    15.5

    I get unexpected auto-learning. Example: I just saw a spam come
    through that scored 9.9, which is enough for it to be tagged as
    spam,
    but it should not be auto-learned as spam. But, in the header it
    clearly reads:

    X-Spam-Status:
    Yes, score=9.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99,
    DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,DCC_CHECK,DIGEST_MULTIPLE,HTML_ 40_50,HTML_MESSAGE
    ,
    MIME_HTMLNLY,RAZR2_CHECK,RCVD_IN_WHIS_INVALID autolearn=spam
    version=3.1.4

    Any ideas?
    >SA does not autolearn based on the final message score. So, toss
    >the 9.9
    >out the window. That's not the number SA compares to the 15.5.
    >>

    >For learning SA uses what the message score would have been if: 1)
    >the
    >AWL is off. 2) Bayes was disabled, including shifting what
    >scoreset is
    >used for all the other rules. 3) all white/blacklists are
    >disabled. This
    >is often *quite* different from the final score.
    >>

    >However, in this case I don't entirely understand The default
    >SA 3.1
    >scores are:
    >>

    >score DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 0.736 0 1.122 0.478
    >score DCC_CHECK 0 1.37 0 2.17
    >score DIGEST_MULTIPLE 0 0.233 0 0.765
    >score HTML_40_50 0.611 0 0.497 0.496
    >score HTML_MESSAGE 0.001
    >score MIME_HTMLNLY 0.414 0.001 0.389 0.001
    >score RAZR2_CHECK 0 0.5 0 0.5
    >score RCVD_IN_WHIS_INVALID 0 2.151 0 2.234
    >>

    >Adding the set1 scores up, the learning score should have been 4.753.
    >>

    >Have you modified any rule scores?


    Here's another example:

    X-Spam-Flag: YES
    X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) on localhost
    X-Spam-Level:
    X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.0 required=5.0 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,BAYES_95,
    DNS_FRM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FRM_RFC_PST,SPF_HELPASS
    autolearn=spam
    version=3.1.4

    I just can't see why it is autolearning everything that is tagged as
    spam.

    Regards,
    Devin
  • No.8 | | 2482 bytes | |

    Aug 24, 2006, at 10:11 AM, lists (AT) zeta (DOT) net wrote:

    Since upgrading to 3.14, when I turn on bayes auto-learn with:

    bayes_auto_learn 1

    and I set the learn boundaries with:

    -3.5
    15.5

    I get unexpected auto-learning. Example: I just saw a spam come
    through that scored 9.9, which is enough for it to be tagged as
    spam,
    but it should not be auto-learned as spam. But, in the header it
    clearly reads:

    X-Spam-Status:
    Yes, score=9.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99,
    DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,DCC_CHECK,DIGEST_MULTIPLE,HTML_ 40_50,HTML_MESSAGE
    ,
    MIME_HTMLNLY,RAZR2_CHECK,RCVD_IN_WHIS_INVALID autolearn=spam
    version=3.1.4

    Any ideas?
    >SA does not autolearn based on the final message score. So, toss
    >the 9.9
    >out the window. That's not the number SA compares to the 15.5.
    >>

    >For learning SA uses what the message score would have been if: 1)
    >the
    >AWL is off. 2) Bayes was disabled, including shifting what
    >scoreset is
    >used for all the other rules. 3) all white/blacklists are
    >disabled. This
    >is often *quite* different from the final score.
    >>

    >However, in this case I don't entirely understand The default
    >SA 3.1
    >scores are:
    >>

    >score DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 0.736 0 1.122 0.478
    >score DCC_CHECK 0 1.37 0 2.17
    >score DIGEST_MULTIPLE 0 0.233 0 0.765
    >score HTML_40_50 0.611 0 0.497 0.496
    >score HTML_MESSAGE 0.001
    >score MIME_HTMLNLY 0.414 0.001 0.389 0.001
    >score RAZR2_CHECK 0 0.5 0 0.5
    >score RCVD_IN_WHIS_INVALID 0 2.151 0 2.234
    >>

    >Adding the set1 scores up, the learning score should have been 4.753.
    >>

    >Have you modified any rule scores?


    Here's another example:

    X-Spam-Flag: YES
    X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) on localhost
    X-Spam-Level:
    X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.0 required=5.0 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,BAYES_95,
    DNS_FRM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FRM_RFC_PST,SPF_HELPASS
    autolearn=spam
    version=3.1.4

    I just can't see why it is autolearning everything that is tagged as
    spam.

    If anyone has any ideas, i'd appreciate it!

    Regards,
    Devin
  • No.9 | | 2482 bytes | |

    Aug 24, 2006, at 10:11 AM, lists (AT) zeta (DOT) net wrote:

    Since upgrading to 3.14, when I turn on bayes auto-learn with:

    bayes_auto_learn 1

    and I set the learn boundaries with:

    -3.5
    15.5

    I get unexpected auto-learning. Example: I just saw a spam come
    through that scored 9.9, which is enough for it to be tagged as
    spam,
    but it should not be auto-learned as spam. But, in the header it
    clearly reads:

    X-Spam-Status:
    Yes, score=9.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99,
    DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,DCC_CHECK,DIGEST_MULTIPLE,HTML_ 40_50,HTML_MESSAGE
    ,
    MIME_HTMLNLY,RAZR2_CHECK,RCVD_IN_WHIS_INVALID autolearn=spam
    version=3.1.4

    Any ideas?
    >SA does not autolearn based on the final message score. So, toss
    >the 9.9
    >out the window. That's not the number SA compares to the 15.5.
    >>

    >For learning SA uses what the message score would have been if: 1)
    >the
    >AWL is off. 2) Bayes was disabled, including shifting what
    >scoreset is
    >used for all the other rules. 3) all white/blacklists are
    >disabled. This
    >is often *quite* different from the final score.
    >>

    >However, in this case I don't entirely understand The default
    >SA 3.1
    >scores are:
    >>

    >score DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 0.736 0 1.122 0.478
    >score DCC_CHECK 0 1.37 0 2.17
    >score DIGEST_MULTIPLE 0 0.233 0 0.765
    >score HTML_40_50 0.611 0 0.497 0.496
    >score HTML_MESSAGE 0.001
    >score MIME_HTMLNLY 0.414 0.001 0.389 0.001
    >score RAZR2_CHECK 0 0.5 0 0.5
    >score RCVD_IN_WHIS_INVALID 0 2.151 0 2.234
    >>

    >Adding the set1 scores up, the learning score should have been 4.753.
    >>

    >Have you modified any rule scores?


    Here's another example:

    X-Spam-Flag: YES
    X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) on localhost
    X-Spam-Level:
    X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.0 required=5.0 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,BAYES_95,
    DNS_FRM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FRM_RFC_PST,SPF_HELPASS
    autolearn=spam
    version=3.1.4

    I just can't see why it is autolearning everything that is tagged as
    spam.

    If anyone has any ideas, i'd appreciate it!

    Regards,
    Devin
  • No.10 | | 2800 bytes | |

    From: <lists (AT) zeta (DOT) net>

    Aug 24, 2006, at 10:11 AM, lists (AT) zeta (DOT) net wrote:

    >>

    Since upgrading to 3.14, when I turn on bayes auto-learn with:

    bayes_auto_learn 1

    and I set the learn boundaries with:

    -3.5
    15.5

    I get unexpected auto-learning. Example: I just saw a spam come
    through that scored 9.9, which is enough for it to be tagged as
    spam,
    but it should not be auto-learned as spam. But, in the header it
    clearly reads:

    X-Spam-Status:
    Yes, score=9.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99,
    DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,DCC_CHECK,DIGEST_MULTIPLE,HTML_ 40_50,HTML_MESSAGE
    ,
    MIME_HTMLNLY,RAZR2_CHECK,RCVD_IN_WHIS_INVALID autolearn=spam
    version=3.1.4

    Any ideas?
    SA does not autolearn based on the final message score. So, toss
    the 9.9
    out the window. That's not the number SA compares to the 15.5.

    For learning SA uses what the message score would have been if: 1)
    the
    AWL is off. 2) Bayes was disabled, including shifting what
    scoreset is
    used for all the other rules. 3) all white/blacklists are
    disabled. This
    is often *quite* different from the final score.

    However, in this case I don't entirely understand The default
    SA 3.1
    scores are:

    score DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 0.736 0 1.122 0.478
    score DCC_CHECK 0 1.37 0 2.17
    score DIGEST_MULTIPLE 0 0.233 0 0.765
    score HTML_40_50 0.611 0 0.497 0.496
    score HTML_MESSAGE 0.001
    score MIME_HTMLNLY 0.414 0.001 0.389 0.001
    score RAZR2_CHECK 0 0.5 0 0.5
    score RCVD_IN_WHIS_INVALID 0 2.151 0 2.234

    Adding the set1 scores up, the learning score should have been 4.753.

    Have you modified any rule scores?

    Here's another example:

    X-Spam-Flag: YES
    X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) on localhost
    X-Spam-Level:
    X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.0 required=5.0 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,BAYES_95,
    DNS_FRM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FRM_RFC_PST,SPF_HELPASS
    autolearn=spam
    version=3.1.4

    I just can't see why it is autolearning everything that is tagged as
    spam.

    If anyone has any ideas, i'd appreciate it!

    grep bayes_auto_learn_threshold /etc/mail/spamassassin/*
    grep bayes_auto_learn_threshold /usr/share/spamassassin/*.cf
    grep bayes_auto_learn_threshold /var/lib/spamassassin//*.cf

    See if somewhere your setting is getting overridden. You might also
    perform some simply checks to see if the file you are changing is
    actually one that SpamAssassin is using. Some distros move the
    directories around. /etc/mail/spamassassin is often /etc/spamassassin,
    for example.

    {^_^}
  • No.11 | | 1279 bytes | |

    >Here's another example:
    >X-Spam-Flag: YES
    >X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) on localhost
    >X-Spam-Level:
    >X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.0 required=5.0
    >tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,BAYES_95,
    >DNS_FRM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FRM_RFC_PST,SPF_HELPASS
    >autolearn=spam
    >version=3.1.4
    >I just can't see why it is autolearning everything that is tagged
    >as spam.
    >If anyone has any ideas, i'd appreciate it!
    >

    grep bayes_auto_learn_threshold /etc/mail/spamassassin/*
    grep bayes_auto_learn_threshold /usr/share/spamassassin/*.cf
    grep bayes_auto_learn_threshold /var/lib/spamassassin//*.cf

    See if somewhere your setting is getting overridden. You might also
    perform some simply checks to see if the file you are changing is
    actually one that SpamAssassin is using. Some distros move the
    directories around. /etc/mail/spamassassin is often /etc/spamassassin,
    for example.

    No other conf files anywhere - the conf files I am modifying are
    definitely the ones SA is using.
    Could my Bayes DB be corrupt? I am using a mysql DB for Bayes.
    Besides this autolearn glitch,
    Bayes is performing well.

    Thanks,
    Devin

Re: analysing the logs


max 4000 letters.
Your nickname that display:
In order to stop the spam: 8 + 7 =
QUESTION ON "Networking"

EMSDN.COM