Hungry Snail wrote:
>
> Hungry Snail wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> I am using spam/notspam via Squirrelmail
>>
>> If I mark an email as spam squirrelmail send this command.
>> COMMAND USED TO REPORT: /usr/bin/sa-learn --spam
>> --configpath=/etc/mail/spamassassin --showdots <
>> /var/spool/squirrelmail/attach//sb_tmp_174_1205370641
>>
>> The result I get is..
>> [0] => Learned tokens from 0 message(s) (1 message(s) examined)
>>
>> Does the result look correct? I was just wondering why is has 0 learned
>> tokens from 0 messages.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>

>
> Thats what I thought, but I forwarded the message to myself and it didnt get
> flagged as spam, it was also a message that was received before spamassassin
> was setup.
>

Why would forwarding a message to yourself be a valid test? Or do you
mean something different like resubmitting the raw message to your mail
queue.

Generally speaking forwarded messages generated by a mail client are
*COMPLETELY* different than the original. New headers, new Recieved
path, new body encoding, possibly removal of text/plain section of a
multipart alternative message, probably new linewrapping..... Forwarding
doesn't forward the same message. It forwards some rendering of the text
parts, the rest is mangled by your MUA.

try redirecting or piping the raw message to spamassassin -t, like you
did with sa-learn.

> I did sa-learn --dump magic and this is what I got back.
>
> 0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
> 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: nspam
> 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: nham
> 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: ntokens
> 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: oldest atime
> 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: newest atime
> 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: last journal sync
> atime
> 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: last expiry atime
> 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: last expire atime
> delta
> 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: last expire
> reduction count
>
> is the command im using correct?

That's quite suspect. Did you run it as the same user as the sa-learn?
You might want to try the sa-learn again with -D to see what the
debugging has to say.



> I want the spam/hame rules to apply to
> everyone and not have it on a per user basis.
>
> Regards
>