From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/50428 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: (: spam-split) doesn't work Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:56:54 -0500 Organization: =?koi8-r?q?=F4=C5=CF=C4=CF=D2=20=FA=CC=C1=D4=C1=CE=CF=D7?= @ Cienfuegos Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <4n3cm9h27d.fsf@chubby.bwh.harvard.edu> References: <87vfzyjx2v.fsf@splinter.inka.de> <4nisvxs1j6.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <874r7g2f4w.fsf@splinter.inka.de> <4nheb8qazq.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <87vfznc21y.fsf@splinter.inka.de> <4nk7g3gdbk.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <87vfzm7p2f.fsf@splinter.inka.de> <4nlm0iad77.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <877kc26j07.fsf@splinter.inka.de> <87el5talpw.fsf@splinter.inka.de> <4nfzq9k84r.fsf@chubby.bwh.harvard.edu> <87wujl8tj8.fsf@splinter.inka.de> <4nwujlim0o.fsf@chubby.bwh.harvard.edu> <87n0khcwty.fsf@splinter.inka.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1046379567 18651 80.91.224.249 (27 Feb 2003 20:59:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:59:27 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18oV6c-0004lr-00 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:58:15 +0100 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 18oV5k-0006zM-00; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:57:20 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:58:20 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (sclp3.sclp.com [66.230.238.2]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA16833 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:58:04 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 8870 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2003 20:56:56 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 8864 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2003 20:56:56 -0000 Original-Received: from clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (134.174.9.41) by 66.230.238.6 with SMTP; 27 Feb 2003 20:56:56 -0000 Original-Received: from chubby.bwh.harvard.edu (chubby [134.174.9.50]) by clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h1RKusj15062 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:56:54 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from tzz@localhost) by chubby.bwh.harvard.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.0) id h1RKus416557; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:56:54 -0500 (EST) Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6;d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: <87n0khcwty.fsf@splinter.inka.de> (Christopher Splinter's message of "Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:06:33 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090016 (Oort Gnus v0.16) Emacs/21.2 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:50428 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:50428 On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, chris@splinter.inka.de wrote: > Ted Zlatanov writes: > >> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, chris@splinter.inka.de wrote: >>> Note that the spamicity value differs from what `S t' returns -- >>> which is a value of 1.0. Moreover, the *Article* buffer of the >>> respective article is deprived of its body after hitting `B r' >>> (which is what I did to get the backtrace) and the score of the >>> header alone (= 0.8477387640) is quite similar to the one below. >>> >>> Debugger entered: ("Unsure, tests=bogofilter, >>> spamicity=0.8469313635, version=0.10.3.1.cvs.20030227") >> >> (background for ding readers: Chris was having issues with >> bogofilter classification in spam.el) >> >> There's the problem, I think. "Unsure" is not a recognized spam >> flag. > > I'm not sure about that. After all, the above value is not what > bogofilter returns when the message, for which bogofilter returns > that value when called via `B t' or `B r', is piped to bogofilter > manually -- in that case, this is returned: > > X-Bogosity: Spam, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=1.0000000000, > version=0.10.3.1.cvs.20030227 > > Therefore I suspect that bogofilter isn't fed the complete message. Sorry for the extensive quoting, there's a lot of context here. I remember we tested this, and the complete message was indeed fed to bogofilter, according to a debug statement. But maybe I was wrong. I remember some narrow/widen issues with IMAP, but I thought I had fixed those. Try replacing spam-bogofilter-path (which is normally the path to bogofilter) with the path to something like this (save this script anywhere and make it executable): #!/usr/bin/perl -w open SAVE,">/tmp/bogofilter.input" or die "Could not save output: $!"; while (<>) { print SAVE $_; } Then look at the /tmp/bogofilter.input file and see if it matches the message we're trying to classify. You can see what bogofilter would have said about it, too, if you do bogofilter -v /tmp/bogofilter.input Thanks Ted