Koozali.org: home of the SME Server

Obsolete Releases => SME 7.x Contribs => Topic started by: shawnbishop on January 02, 2010, 08:04:56 AM

Title: SpamAssassin 2010 tagging legitimate email as SPAM..??
Post by: shawnbishop on January 02, 2010, 08:04:56 AM
Good Day

I just wanted to know will the Spamassassin be updated asap..??

look at this link..

https://secure.grepular.com/blog/index.php/2010/01/01/spamassassin-2010-bug/
Title: Re: SpamAssassin 2010 tagging legitimate email as SPAM..??
Post by: janet on January 02, 2010, 02:24:00 PM
shawnbishop

Please check bug reports, see
http://bugs.contribs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5691
Title: Re: SpamAssassin 2010 tagging legitimate email as SPAM..??
Post by: shawnbishop on January 02, 2010, 05:18:43 PM
Ok...

Read through the bug report, from what I understand we should just run the following??

/etc/cron.d/sa_update

or must we do the following?..??

mkdir -p /etc/e-smith/templates-custom/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf

echo score FH_DATE_PAST_20XX 0.0 >>
/etc/e-smith/templates-custom/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf/99FH_DATE_PAST_20XX

signal-event email-update


I am going to run a yum update to make sure all the servers have the latest packages, but not sure what else to do..
Title: Re: SpamAssassin 2010 tagging legitimate email as SPAM..??
Post by: mercyh on January 02, 2010, 07:31:35 PM
shawnbishop,

Mine all ran the sa_update on their own sometime yesterday or last nigh.

Have you checked e-mail message headers from today to see if they are still hitting the rule?
Title: Re: SpamAssassin 2010 tagging legitimate email as SPAM..??
Post by: shawnbishop on January 03, 2010, 08:30:44 AM
I ran the sa-update manually on all the servers, will check them by tomorrow, all the clients are back on the 4th so will soon know if mail is missing..
Title: Re: SpamAssassin 2010 tagging legitimate email as SPAM..??
Post by: cactus on January 03, 2010, 12:19:26 PM
Read through the bug report, from what I understand we should just run the following??

/etc/cron.d/sa_update
Yes, but it will be done overnight as well. You can check the logs send to the admin and see if the version gets updated to minimum version 895063.

To check the rule really is there you can do this:
Code: [Select]
grep -R '20\[2-9\]\[0-9\]' /var/lib/spamassassin/3.002005/updates_spamassassin_org/72_active.cf
It should output this:
Code: [Select]
header   FH_DATE_PAST_20XX      Date =~ /20[2-9][0-9]/ [if-unset: 2006]The first digit group after 20 should say [2-9] and not [1-9].

or must we do the following?..??

Code: [Select]
mkdir -p /etc/e-smith/templates-custom/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf

echo score FH_DATE_PAST_20XX 0.0 >> /etc/e-smith/templates-custom/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf/99FH_DATE_PAST_20XX

signal-event email-update
No, as that was the work around until the bug got fixed as you could have read in the bug report.

I am going to run a yum update to make sure all the servers have the latest packages, but not sure what else to do..
Although that is a good thing it will not update the faulty rule as this will not be fixed until spamassassin 3.2.6 is released. The updated rule is pushed to the update channel from which sa_update takes it's definitions and should therefore update it through that path.

Since it was pushed at Jan 1st, 2010 12:54 UTC. Any update using sa_update afterwards should have picked this up. sa_update runs around 4.00 local time at night on your machine, so most likely you received the update on Jan 2nd.
Title: Re: SpamAssassin 2010 tagging legitimate email as SPAM..??
Post by: shawnbishop on January 03, 2010, 06:12:36 PM
Cheers..

Clearer then reading the bugzilla...
Title: Re: SpamAssassin 2010 tagging legitimate email as SPAM..??
Post by: cactus on January 03, 2010, 06:29:12 PM
Clearer then reading the bugzilla...
Most likely, as the bugtracker has a different goal... fixing issues instead of explaining stuff. I wrote most of the stuff in that bug report as well. :-)
Title: Re: SpamAssassin 2010 tagging legitimate email as SPAM..??
Post by: shawnbishop on January 04, 2010, 07:10:07 AM
Quite correct...difficult for us Non coding noobs to read.. :-)

But a great help thanks