From noreply at sourceforge.net Wed Aug 2 04:02:41 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:02:41 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Patches-1532856 ] Compute size of embedded images Message-ID: Patches item #1532856, was opened at 2006-08-01 21:02 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498105&aid=1532856&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Skip Montanaro (montanaro) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Compute size of embedded images Initial Comment: Attached is a tokenizer patch that generates int(log2(size)) tokens for embedded images. It seems clear we have to do more about image-based spam. This seems like a cheap trick, and at least for my current corpus generates a fair number of spammy clues: token,nspam,nham,spam prob image-size:2**6,4,1,0.5 image-size:2**7,4,1,0.5 image-size:2**5,1,0,0.844827586207 image-size:2**8,6,0,0.96511627907 image-size:2**9,3,0,0.934782608696 image-size:2**10,7,1,0.620791675168 image-size:2**11,9,0,0.97619047619 image-size:2**12,13,0,0.983271375465 image-size:2**13,14,0,0.984429065744 image-size:2**14,53,0,0.995790458372 image-size:2**15,19,1,0.813543282782 Of course, it may not improve discrimination with tested more rigorously, but it might be worth a try. I haven't done any NxN testing. I no longer have more training messages laying about than is necessary for my day-to-day needs. Note that the patch will apply to current sources with an offset or two. I have a couple other mods in my current source code that I excised from the diffs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498105&aid=1532856&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Wed Aug 2 04:14:40 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:14:40 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Patches-1532862 ] Count runs of short 'words' Message-ID: Patches item #1532862, was opened at 2006-08-01 21:14 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498105&aid=1532862&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Skip Montanaro (montanaro) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Count runs of short 'words' Initial Comment: I don't believe I submitted this before. A common spam technique of relatively recent vintage is to spell spam words with embedded spaces. In the case of SpamBayes at least, they are thus skipped. This patch generates tokens based on the longest such run seen in a message. At the moment it seems to be not much help: token,nspam,nham,spam prob short:5,0,1,0.155172413793 short:4,1,2,0.158641753503 short:3,6,2,0.5 short:2,16,6,0.393162750975 short:1,138,31,0.5 short:0,52,9,0.5 but I seem to recall that when I first tried it, it helped. Including here for completeness in case someone wants to test it out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498105&aid=1532862&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Sun Aug 6 02:20:11 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:20:11 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1535214 ] Mail without a To: field not sent to Inbox Message-ID: Bugs item #1535214, was opened at 2006-08-05 17:20 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1535214&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Mail without a To: field not sent to Inbox Initial Comment: NOted that spamBayes classified mail as ***Ham*** AND it does show up properly as Ham in the review of database BUT is ***NOT*** passed on to the Inbox (OE) and therefore is totally missing as new mail, either spam, unsure or ham. Until today after using SB for more than a year I realized that a good part of my mail was missing but only readable in the reviews of SpamBayes mail. So far NO spam arrives without a To: field in the body so that this is not an unresolvable problem. (BTW, the biggest new spam problem is 'image based' spam, which is not easily dealt with by text based statistical methodology.) I can bypass this (and as of today, 8/6/06) have in OE by setting up an OI Microsoft "rule" which is executed prior to allowing SpamBayes inputs. This hack sends such erroneous mail to the Inbox despite SpamBayes proper classification as Ham but not processing proxying it properly to the Inbox. I can provide any file that the developer(s) might want but with considerable annotation as I personally know what is Ham vs. Spam. --- John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1535214&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Sun Aug 6 22:13:26 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 13:13:26 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1535214 ] Mail without a To: field not sent to Inbox Message-ID: Bugs item #1535214, was opened at 2006-08-05 17:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by jljacobs You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1535214&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Mail without a To: field not sent to Inbox Initial Comment: NOted that spamBayes classified mail as ***Ham*** AND it does show up properly as Ham in the review of database BUT is ***NOT*** passed on to the Inbox (OE) and therefore is totally missing as new mail, either spam, unsure or ham. Until today after using SB for more than a year I realized that a good part of my mail was missing but only readable in the reviews of SpamBayes mail. So far NO spam arrives without a To: field in the body so that this is not an unresolvable problem. (BTW, the biggest new spam problem is 'image based' spam, which is not easily dealt with by text based statistical methodology.) I can bypass this (and as of today, 8/6/06) have in OE by setting up an OI Microsoft "rule" which is executed prior to allowing SpamBayes inputs. This hack sends such erroneous mail to the Inbox despite SpamBayes proper classification as Ham but not processing proxying it properly to the Inbox. I can provide any file that the developer(s) might want but with considerable annotation as I personally know what is Ham vs. Spam. --- John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Date: 2006-08-06 13:13 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1569546 John here again ---- I note that the lack of SB passing Ham onto OE's Inbox is for me exclusively related to mail from a Mac where the mailer totally fails to insert the "To:" in the msg body. I am at a loss to deal with this as it does not always occur but appears to happen randomly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1535214&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Sun Aug 6 23:45:18 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:45:18 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1535214 ] Mail without a To: field not sent to Inbox Message-ID: Bugs item #1535214, was opened at 2006-08-06 12:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by anadelonbrin You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1535214&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Mail without a To: field not sent to Inbox Initial Comment: NOted that spamBayes classified mail as ***Ham*** AND it does show up properly as Ham in the review of database BUT is ***NOT*** passed on to the Inbox (OE) and therefore is totally missing as new mail, either spam, unsure or ham. Until today after using SB for more than a year I realized that a good part of my mail was missing but only readable in the reviews of SpamBayes mail. So far NO spam arrives without a To: field in the body so that this is not an unresolvable problem. (BTW, the biggest new spam problem is 'image based' spam, which is not easily dealt with by text based statistical methodology.) I can bypass this (and as of today, 8/6/06) have in OE by setting up an OI Microsoft "rule" which is executed prior to allowing SpamBayes inputs. This hack sends such erroneous mail to the Inbox despite SpamBayes proper classification as Ham but not processing proxying it properly to the Inbox. I can provide any file that the developer(s) might want but with considerable annotation as I personally know what is Ham vs. Spam. --- John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2006-08-07 09:45 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 This isn't particularly clear, sorry. The POP3 proxy lets *all* mail through - either with an X-Spambayes-Classification header, or an X-Spambayes-Exception header if something went wrong. Messages don't generally have a "To" in the body - this is in the headers of the message. Perhaps that was what you meant? Certainly every mail client I have seen (which includes all of the major OS X ones) does include a "To" header (but none include it in the body). If you are able to fix this by using a rule in OE, then that means that the mail *is* being delivered to Outlook Express - or the rule would never see it. Could you explain further what you mean? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Date: 2006-08-07 08:13 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1569546 John here again ---- I note that the lack of SB passing Ham onto OE's Inbox is for me exclusively related to mail from a Mac where the mailer totally fails to insert the "To:" in the msg body. I am at a loss to deal with this as it does not always occur but appears to happen randomly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1535214&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Mon Aug 7 03:27:19 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:27:19 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1535214 ] Mail without a To: field not sent to Inbox Message-ID: Bugs item #1535214, was opened at 2006-08-05 17:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by jljacobs You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1535214&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Mail without a To: field not sent to Inbox Initial Comment: NOted that spamBayes classified mail as ***Ham*** AND it does show up properly as Ham in the review of database BUT is ***NOT*** passed on to the Inbox (OE) and therefore is totally missing as new mail, either spam, unsure or ham. Until today after using SB for more than a year I realized that a good part of my mail was missing but only readable in the reviews of SpamBayes mail. So far NO spam arrives without a To: field in the body so that this is not an unresolvable problem. (BTW, the biggest new spam problem is 'image based' spam, which is not easily dealt with by text based statistical methodology.) I can bypass this (and as of today, 8/6/06) have in OE by setting up an OI Microsoft "rule" which is executed prior to allowing SpamBayes inputs. This hack sends such erroneous mail to the Inbox despite SpamBayes proper classification as Ham but not processing proxying it properly to the Inbox. I can provide any file that the developer(s) might want but with considerable annotation as I personally know what is Ham vs. Spam. --- John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Date: 2006-08-06 18:27 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1569546 To: Tony Meyer Let me define the SMTP 'body' as all the text that is not entered by SMTP servers in transit. The 'To:', 'From:' and 'Subject:' fields have the same status as the rest of a msg and none are even necessary to send mail. Try it by connecting to any SMTP server and send a msg by entering the SMTP commands (by brute force). The 'Envelope' header is the part of a msg added by the sending server and all intermediaries (of which their should be none --- relays). Now, proceeding here, there is a mailer used by an associate (in France) which sends Bcc: mail without and 'body' To: header whatsoever. My guess is that when that mail arrives since there is no 'To:' body header there is no place for Spambayes to add the 'ham', 'spam' or 'unsure' literals. The lack of a 'To:' field results in the mail being in the 'Browse Messages' listing and can be read there but it is NOT passed on to OE. It stops at the proxy. Carrying this further, if I use the 'To":' header for Spambayes to add the 'ham', 'spam' or 'unsure' result and I get a msg that has no 'To:' header (whether you want to call this the 'body' or the 'envelope' not being relevant, then you tell me where Spambayes is to put the resultand literal string. It simply does not exist in msgs from this mailer. I am trying to get around this by using OE's 'rules' but that is unreliable and really a cludge/hack. It appears to me that Spambayes recognize the ^^^lack of the field***, in this case the 'To:' field, which is configured for the concatination of the 'ham', 'spam' or 'unsure' string. If that is the configuration as mine is, Spambayes does not know what to do and though the messages are readable from browsing they get droped at that point and asre not passed on. I hope this clarifies the issue. Regards, John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2006-08-06 14:45 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 This isn't particularly clear, sorry. The POP3 proxy lets *all* mail through - either with an X-Spambayes-Classification header, or an X-Spambayes-Exception header if something went wrong. Messages don't generally have a "To" in the body - this is in the headers of the message. Perhaps that was what you meant? Certainly every mail client I have seen (which includes all of the major OS X ones) does include a "To" header (but none include it in the body). If you are able to fix this by using a rule in OE, then that means that the mail *is* being delivered to Outlook Express - or the rule would never see it. Could you explain further what you mean? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Date: 2006-08-06 13:13 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1569546 John here again ---- I note that the lack of SB passing Ham onto OE's Inbox is for me exclusively related to mail from a Mac where the mailer totally fails to insert the "To:" in the msg body. I am at a loss to deal with this as it does not always occur but appears to happen randomly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1535214&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Mon Aug 7 04:25:43 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 19:25:43 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1535214 ] Mail without a To: field not sent to Inbox Message-ID: Bugs item #1535214, was opened at 2006-08-06 12:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by anadelonbrin You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1535214&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Mail without a To: field not sent to Inbox Initial Comment: NOted that spamBayes classified mail as ***Ham*** AND it does show up properly as Ham in the review of database BUT is ***NOT*** passed on to the Inbox (OE) and therefore is totally missing as new mail, either spam, unsure or ham. Until today after using SB for more than a year I realized that a good part of my mail was missing but only readable in the reviews of SpamBayes mail. So far NO spam arrives without a To: field in the body so that this is not an unresolvable problem. (BTW, the biggest new spam problem is 'image based' spam, which is not easily dealt with by text based statistical methodology.) I can bypass this (and as of today, 8/6/06) have in OE by setting up an OI Microsoft "rule" which is executed prior to allowing SpamBayes inputs. This hack sends such erroneous mail to the Inbox despite SpamBayes proper classification as Ham but not processing proxying it properly to the Inbox. I can provide any file that the developer(s) might want but with considerable annotation as I personally know what is Ham vs. Spam. --- John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2006-08-07 14:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 The body of a message is everything after the blank line that separates the headers and body (see RFC2822). SMTP servers are meant to *add* headers (to the DATA portion, which is the only part that gets to the recipient). You don't need any headers in a message, and SMTP isn't the only way to deliver mail. If there isn't a To: header and you are using the notate_to option, then a To: header (containing only the notation) is added. Again, either mail gets to OE or it doesn't. If it doesn't get there, then it doesn't matter what you do with rules, the mail isn't there to be processed. Does the mail get to OE or not? If it doesn't, then please attach a log file for when this happened and let us know which version of SpamBayes you are using. If the mail does arrive in OE, then I still don't understand what the problem is here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Date: 2006-08-07 13:27 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1569546 To: Tony Meyer Let me define the SMTP 'body' as all the text that is not entered by SMTP servers in transit. The 'To:', 'From:' and 'Subject:' fields have the same status as the rest of a msg and none are even necessary to send mail. Try it by connecting to any SMTP server and send a msg by entering the SMTP commands (by brute force). The 'Envelope' header is the part of a msg added by the sending server and all intermediaries (of which their should be none --- relays). Now, proceeding here, there is a mailer used by an associate (in France) which sends Bcc: mail without and 'body' To: header whatsoever. My guess is that when that mail arrives since there is no 'To:' body header there is no place for Spambayes to add the 'ham', 'spam' or 'unsure' literals. The lack of a 'To:' field results in the mail being in the 'Browse Messages' listing and can be read there but it is NOT passed on to OE. It stops at the proxy. Carrying this further, if I use the 'To":' header for Spambayes to add the 'ham', 'spam' or 'unsure' result and I get a msg that has no 'To:' header (whether you want to call this the 'body' or the 'envelope' not being relevant, then you tell me where Spambayes is to put the resultand literal string. It simply does not exist in msgs from this mailer. I am trying to get around this by using OE's 'rules' but that is unreliable and really a cludge/hack. It appears to me that Spambayes recognize the ^^^lack of the field***, in this case the 'To:' field, which is configured for the concatination of the 'ham', 'spam' or 'unsure' string. If that is the configuration as mine is, Spambayes does not know what to do and though the messages are readable from browsing they get droped at that point and asre not passed on. I hope this clarifies the issue. Regards, John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2006-08-07 09:45 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 This isn't particularly clear, sorry. The POP3 proxy lets *all* mail through - either with an X-Spambayes-Classification header, or an X-Spambayes-Exception header if something went wrong. Messages don't generally have a "To" in the body - this is in the headers of the message. Perhaps that was what you meant? Certainly every mail client I have seen (which includes all of the major OS X ones) does include a "To" header (but none include it in the body). If you are able to fix this by using a rule in OE, then that means that the mail *is* being delivered to Outlook Express - or the rule would never see it. Could you explain further what you mean? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Date: 2006-08-07 08:13 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1569546 John here again ---- I note that the lack of SB passing Ham onto OE's Inbox is for me exclusively related to mail from a Mac where the mailer totally fails to insert the "To:" in the msg body. I am at a loss to deal with this as it does not always occur but appears to happen randomly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1535214&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Mon Aug 7 21:26:29 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:26:29 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1535214 ] Mail without a To: field not sent to Inbox Message-ID: Bugs item #1535214, was opened at 2006-08-05 17:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by jljacobs You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1535214&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Mail without a To: field not sent to Inbox Initial Comment: NOted that spamBayes classified mail as ***Ham*** AND it does show up properly as Ham in the review of database BUT is ***NOT*** passed on to the Inbox (OE) and therefore is totally missing as new mail, either spam, unsure or ham. Until today after using SB for more than a year I realized that a good part of my mail was missing but only readable in the reviews of SpamBayes mail. So far NO spam arrives without a To: field in the body so that this is not an unresolvable problem. (BTW, the biggest new spam problem is 'image based' spam, which is not easily dealt with by text based statistical methodology.) I can bypass this (and as of today, 8/6/06) have in OE by setting up an OI Microsoft "rule" which is executed prior to allowing SpamBayes inputs. This hack sends such erroneous mail to the Inbox despite SpamBayes proper classification as Ham but not processing proxying it properly to the Inbox. I can provide any file that the developer(s) might want but with considerable annotation as I personally know what is Ham vs. Spam. --- John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Date: 2006-08-07 12:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1569546 Tony --- The issue is not random contrary to an my earlier statment as I can see what is happening. I received ***4*** msgs today from my associate in France. Only ***one*** of them was pased thru to OE. The other three have identical errors in the header. (1) All come from a Mac with the header --- X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2). (2) All 4 have an X-Spambayes-Classification:ham. I repeat ham. (3) The 3 that were not passed thru show 'to:none in the X-Spambayes-Evidence header. (4) The one that got was passed thru shows 'to:name:john l jacobs in the evidence. (5) The latter 'to:' evidence traces do not effect the classification as Ham. I don't think that is the issue that is causing SB to fail to pass this Ham onto OE. (6) The only unique thing is that the singular msg that was passed to OE has a "To:" header, in fact addressed to me. The other 3 were sent using Bcc:, I believe in the senders Apple Mail(er). (7) The other 3 lack entirely the "To: header --- and the evidence data shows that despite my guess that the evidence noting this is irrelevant. My config requires that the only 'spam' or 'unsure' be appended to the "To:" header. (If Ham nothing is appended. Since the three that were not passed thru to OE would not have had anything appended, they being Hamn, I have to conclude that the problem is that Spambayes, contrary to your belief, does NOT pass thru msgs that completely lack a "To:" header at least when the configuration would ***require*** the evaluation to be appended to that header --- whether it would be or not. This is a definitely a bug but I've not done any programming in decades so am unable to analyze anything but the result but it can replicate it or rather it replicates itself daily with Apple Mail incoming from my associate. And BTW, as you have said anything passed thru to OE would be seen by OE and could be acted on by its 'Rules'. I am incorrect in stating that I have a workaround in the 'Rules'. My first jump at this is logically and factually impossible and does not work. I have deactivated ALL rules at this point to exclude OE as the culprit here. Here is the header of 1 of the 3 that did not get passed to OE. Looking at this in webmail I am not sure that the entire evidence section got "pasted" properly --- it looks shorter than the original --- I hat web mail (!!!) Anyway you will note the complete lack of a "To:" header. The other 2 msgs are the same and were not passed to OE............ Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailbox2 at speakeasy.net Received: (qmail 22258 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2006 06:23:11 -0000 Delivered-To: info at jljacobs.com Received: (qmail 24167 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2006 06:23:11 -0000 Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.174]) (envelope-sender ) by mail26.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Aug 2006 06:23:11 -0000 Received: from mac.com (smtpin08-en2 [10.13.10.153]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/8.12.11/smtpout04/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id k776N7tF024876; Sun, 6 Aug 2006 23:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (aputeaux-152-1-62-72.w82-120.abo.wanadoo.fr [82.120.168.72]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/smtpin08/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id k776Mwdn004025; Sun, 6 Aug 2006 23:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Message-Id: <8068EC86-D1D6-4943-9B80-C5EF17BD6ADE at mac.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-120-530927214 From: Tom Gaston Subject: The Original Statue of Liberty was created in France...Here, in Lorraine. Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:23:06 +0200 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Spambayes-Classification: ham X-Spambayes-Spam-Probability: 0.00 X-Spambayes-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'x-mailer:apple mail (2.746.2)': 0.03; 'received:10.13': 0.04; 'received:17': 0.04; 'received:17.250': 0.04; 'received:17.250.248': 0.04; 'received:mac.com': 0.04; 'received:smtpout.mac.com': 0.04; 'from:addr:nygaston': 0.04; 'from:name:tom gaston': 0.04; 'received:10.13.10': 0.05; 'message-id:@mac.com': 0.05; 'from:addr:mac.com': 0.07; 'received:192.168.1': 0.08; 'received:192.168.1.11': 0.09; 'content-type:multipart/mixed': 0.12; 'content-type:image/jpeg': 0.14; 'received:10.13.10.153': 0.16; 'subject:skip:F 10': 0.16; 'filename:fname piece:jpg': 0.19; 'received:10': 0.21; 'received:192.168': 0.26; 'received:192': 0.29; 'subject:The': 0.37; 'to:none': 0.61; 'subject:.': 0.67; 'charset:us-ascii': 0.69; 'received:com': 0.73; 'received:network': 0.81; 'subject:Original': 0.84; 'subject:created': 0.84; 'subject:was': 0.91; 'subject:,\n\t': 0.98 X-Spambayes-MailId: 1154931838 --Apple-Mail-120-530927214 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: image/jpeg; x-mac-type=4A504547; x-unix-mode=0644; name="IMG_4811.jpg" Content-Disposition: inline; filename=IMG_4811.jpg I do believe I have isolated what is happening here though I do not have the skills any longer to examine the code. Regards, John (414-255-7000) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2006-08-06 19:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 The body of a message is everything after the blank line that separates the headers and body (see RFC2822). SMTP servers are meant to *add* headers (to the DATA portion, which is the only part that gets to the recipient). You don't need any headers in a message, and SMTP isn't the only way to deliver mail. If there isn't a To: header and you are using the notate_to option, then a To: header (containing only the notation) is added. Again, either mail gets to OE or it doesn't. If it doesn't get there, then it doesn't matter what you do with rules, the mail isn't there to be processed. Does the mail get to OE or not? If it doesn't, then please attach a log file for when this happened and let us know which version of SpamBayes you are using. If the mail does arrive in OE, then I still don't understand what the problem is here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Date: 2006-08-06 18:27 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1569546 To: Tony Meyer Let me define the SMTP 'body' as all the text that is not entered by SMTP servers in transit. The 'To:', 'From:' and 'Subject:' fields have the same status as the rest of a msg and none are even necessary to send mail. Try it by connecting to any SMTP server and send a msg by entering the SMTP commands (by brute force). The 'Envelope' header is the part of a msg added by the sending server and all intermediaries (of which their should be none --- relays). Now, proceeding here, there is a mailer used by an associate (in France) which sends Bcc: mail without and 'body' To: header whatsoever. My guess is that when that mail arrives since there is no 'To:' body header there is no place for Spambayes to add the 'ham', 'spam' or 'unsure' literals. The lack of a 'To:' field results in the mail being in the 'Browse Messages' listing and can be read there but it is NOT passed on to OE. It stops at the proxy. Carrying this further, if I use the 'To":' header for Spambayes to add the 'ham', 'spam' or 'unsure' result and I get a msg that has no 'To:' header (whether you want to call this the 'body' or the 'envelope' not being relevant, then you tell me where Spambayes is to put the resultand literal string. It simply does not exist in msgs from this mailer. I am trying to get around this by using OE's 'rules' but that is unreliable and really a cludge/hack. It appears to me that Spambayes recognize the ^^^lack of the field***, in this case the 'To:' field, which is configured for the concatination of the 'ham', 'spam' or 'unsure' string. If that is the configuration as mine is, Spambayes does not know what to do and though the messages are readable from browsing they get droped at that point and asre not passed on. I hope this clarifies the issue. Regards, John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2006-08-06 14:45 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 This isn't particularly clear, sorry. The POP3 proxy lets *all* mail through - either with an X-Spambayes-Classification header, or an X-Spambayes-Exception header if something went wrong. Messages don't generally have a "To" in the body - this is in the headers of the message. Perhaps that was what you meant? Certainly every mail client I have seen (which includes all of the major OS X ones) does include a "To" header (but none include it in the body). If you are able to fix this by using a rule in OE, then that means that the mail *is* being delivered to Outlook Express - or the rule would never see it. Could you explain further what you mean? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Date: 2006-08-06 13:13 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1569546 John here again ---- I note that the lack of SB passing Ham onto OE's Inbox is for me exclusively related to mail from a Mac where the mailer totally fails to insert the "To:" in the msg body. I am at a loss to deal with this as it does not always occur but appears to happen randomly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1535214&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Mon Aug 7 23:53:34 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:53:34 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1535214 ] Mail without a To: field not sent to Inbox Message-ID: Bugs item #1535214, was opened at 2006-08-06 12:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by anadelonbrin You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1535214&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Mail without a To: field not sent to Inbox Initial Comment: NOted that spamBayes classified mail as ***Ham*** AND it does show up properly as Ham in the review of database BUT is ***NOT*** passed on to the Inbox (OE) and therefore is totally missing as new mail, either spam, unsure or ham. Until today after using SB for more than a year I realized that a good part of my mail was missing but only readable in the reviews of SpamBayes mail. So far NO spam arrives without a To: field in the body so that this is not an unresolvable problem. (BTW, the biggest new spam problem is 'image based' spam, which is not easily dealt with by text based statistical methodology.) I can bypass this (and as of today, 8/6/06) have in OE by setting up an OI Microsoft "rule" which is executed prior to allowing SpamBayes inputs. This hack sends such erroneous mail to the Inbox despite SpamBayes proper classification as Ham but not processing proxying it properly to the Inbox. I can provide any file that the developer(s) might want but with considerable annotation as I personally know what is Ham vs. Spam. --- John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2006-08-08 09:53 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 BTW, I have verified that this does indeed work (mail from Apple Mail using only bcc (so there isn't a To: header) to Outlook Express 6 (XP Home) using spambayes 1.0.4 and spambayes 1.1a2 with the notate_to option set to unsure & spam. With both, the message arrived correctly, with no To: header. You're now saying that the messages aren't received by Outlook Express at all, so what we need is a copy of your most recent log and to know what version of spambayes you are using. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Date: 2006-08-08 07:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1569546 Tony --- The issue is not random contrary to an my earlier statment as I can see what is happening. I received ***4*** msgs today from my associate in France. Only ***one*** of them was pased thru to OE. The other three have identical errors in the header. (1) All come from a Mac with the header --- X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2). (2) All 4 have an X-Spambayes-Classification:ham. I repeat ham. (3) The 3 that were not passed thru show 'to:none in the X-Spambayes-Evidence header. (4) The one that got was passed thru shows 'to:name:john l jacobs in the evidence. (5) The latter 'to:' evidence traces do not effect the classification as Ham. I don't think that is the issue that is causing SB to fail to pass this Ham onto OE. (6) The only unique thing is that the singular msg that was passed to OE has a "To:" header, in fact addressed to me. The other 3 were sent using Bcc:, I believe in the senders Apple Mail(er). (7) The other 3 lack entirely the "To: header --- and the evidence data shows that despite my guess that the evidence noting this is irrelevant. My config requires that the only 'spam' or 'unsure' be appended to the "To:" header. (If Ham nothing is appended. Since the three that were not passed thru to OE would not have had anything appended, they being Hamn, I have to conclude that the problem is that Spambayes, contrary to your belief, does NOT pass thru msgs that completely lack a "To:" header at least when the configuration would ***require*** the evaluation to be appended to that header --- whether it would be or not. This is a definitely a bug but I've not done any programming in decades so am unable to analyze anything but the result but it can replicate it or rather it replicates itself daily with Apple Mail incoming from my associate. And BTW, as you have said anything passed thru to OE would be seen by OE and could be acted on by its 'Rules'. I am incorrect in stating that I have a workaround in the 'Rules'. My first jump at this is logically and factually impossible and does not work. I have deactivated ALL rules at this point to exclude OE as the culprit here. Here is the header of 1 of the 3 that did not get passed to OE. Looking at this in webmail I am not sure that the entire evidence section got "pasted" properly --- it looks shorter than the original --- I hat web mail (!!!) Anyway you will note the complete lack of a "To:" header. The other 2 msgs are the same and were not passed to OE............ Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailbox2 at speakeasy.net Received: (qmail 22258 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2006 06:23:11 -0000 Delivered-To: info at jljacobs.com Received: (qmail 24167 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2006 06:23:11 -0000 Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.174]) (envelope-sender ) by mail26.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Aug 2006 06:23:11 -0000 Received: from mac.com (smtpin08-en2 [10.13.10.153]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/8.12.11/smtpout04/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id k776N7tF024876; Sun, 6 Aug 2006 23:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (aputeaux-152-1-62-72.w82-120.abo.wanadoo.fr [82.120.168.72]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/smtpin08/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id k776Mwdn004025; Sun, 6 Aug 2006 23:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Message-Id: <8068EC86-D1D6-4943-9B80-C5EF17BD6ADE at mac.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-120-530927214 From: Tom Gaston Subject: The Original Statue of Liberty was created in France...Here, in Lorraine. Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:23:06 +0200 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Spambayes-Classification: ham X-Spambayes-Spam-Probability: 0.00 X-Spambayes-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'x-mailer:apple mail (2.746.2)': 0.03; 'received:10.13': 0.04; 'received:17': 0.04; 'received:17.250': 0.04; 'received:17.250.248': 0.04; 'received:mac.com': 0.04; 'received:smtpout.mac.com': 0.04; 'from:addr:nygaston': 0.04; 'from:name:tom gaston': 0.04; 'received:10.13.10': 0.05; 'message-id:@mac.com': 0.05; 'from:addr:mac.com': 0.07; 'received:192.168.1': 0.08; 'received:192.168.1.11': 0.09; 'content-type:multipart/mixed': 0.12; 'content-type:image/jpeg': 0.14; 'received:10.13.10.153': 0.16; 'subject:skip:F 10': 0.16; 'filename:fname piece:jpg': 0.19; 'received:10': 0.21; 'received:192.168': 0.26; 'received:192': 0.29; 'subject:The': 0.37; 'to:none': 0.61; 'subject:.': 0.67; 'charset:us-ascii': 0.69; 'received:com': 0.73; 'received:network': 0.81; 'subject:Original': 0.84; 'subject:created': 0.84; 'subject:was': 0.91; 'subject:,\n\t': 0.98 X-Spambayes-MailId: 1154931838 --Apple-Mail-120-530927214 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: image/jpeg; x-mac-type=4A504547; x-unix-mode=0644; name="IMG_4811.jpg" Content-Disposition: inline; filename=IMG_4811.jpg I do believe I have isolated what is happening here though I do not have the skills any longer to examine the code. Regards, John (414-255-7000) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2006-08-07 14:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 The body of a message is everything after the blank line that separates the headers and body (see RFC2822). SMTP servers are meant to *add* headers (to the DATA portion, which is the only part that gets to the recipient). You don't need any headers in a message, and SMTP isn't the only way to deliver mail. If there isn't a To: header and you are using the notate_to option, then a To: header (containing only the notation) is added. Again, either mail gets to OE or it doesn't. If it doesn't get there, then it doesn't matter what you do with rules, the mail isn't there to be processed. Does the mail get to OE or not? If it doesn't, then please attach a log file for when this happened and let us know which version of SpamBayes you are using. If the mail does arrive in OE, then I still don't understand what the problem is here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Date: 2006-08-07 13:27 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1569546 To: Tony Meyer Let me define the SMTP 'body' as all the text that is not entered by SMTP servers in transit. The 'To:', 'From:' and 'Subject:' fields have the same status as the rest of a msg and none are even necessary to send mail. Try it by connecting to any SMTP server and send a msg by entering the SMTP commands (by brute force). The 'Envelope' header is the part of a msg added by the sending server and all intermediaries (of which their should be none --- relays). Now, proceeding here, there is a mailer used by an associate (in France) which sends Bcc: mail without and 'body' To: header whatsoever. My guess is that when that mail arrives since there is no 'To:' body header there is no place for Spambayes to add the 'ham', 'spam' or 'unsure' literals. The lack of a 'To:' field results in the mail being in the 'Browse Messages' listing and can be read there but it is NOT passed on to OE. It stops at the proxy. Carrying this further, if I use the 'To":' header for Spambayes to add the 'ham', 'spam' or 'unsure' result and I get a msg that has no 'To:' header (whether you want to call this the 'body' or the 'envelope' not being relevant, then you tell me where Spambayes is to put the resultand literal string. It simply does not exist in msgs from this mailer. I am trying to get around this by using OE's 'rules' but that is unreliable and really a cludge/hack. It appears to me that Spambayes recognize the ^^^lack of the field***, in this case the 'To:' field, which is configured for the concatination of the 'ham', 'spam' or 'unsure' string. If that is the configuration as mine is, Spambayes does not know what to do and though the messages are readable from browsing they get droped at that point and asre not passed on. I hope this clarifies the issue. Regards, John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2006-08-07 09:45 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 This isn't particularly clear, sorry. The POP3 proxy lets *all* mail through - either with an X-Spambayes-Classification header, or an X-Spambayes-Exception header if something went wrong. Messages don't generally have a "To" in the body - this is in the headers of the message. Perhaps that was what you meant? Certainly every mail client I have seen (which includes all of the major OS X ones) does include a "To" header (but none include it in the body). If you are able to fix this by using a rule in OE, then that means that the mail *is* being delivered to Outlook Express - or the rule would never see it. Could you explain further what you mean? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: jljacobs (jljacobs) Date: 2006-08-07 08:13 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1569546 John here again ---- I note that the lack of SB passing Ham onto OE's Inbox is for me exclusively related to mail from a Mac where the mailer totally fails to insert the "To:" in the msg body. I am at a loss to deal with this as it does not always occur but appears to happen randomly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1535214&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Tue Aug 8 11:43:40 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 02:43:40 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1527425 ] Same thing Message-ID: Bugs item #1527425, was opened at 2006-07-24 06:36 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by anadelonbrin You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1527425&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Outlook Group: None >Status: Pending Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: pjmarkert (pjmarkert) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Same thing Initial Comment: Same problem with outlook with 2000, 2003 and 2007 beta with no add-ins. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2006-08-08 21:43 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 "Same problem" is very vague. Same as what? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1527425&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Thu Aug 10 00:32:27 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:32:27 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1537725 ] Outlook 2007 Beta 2 will not launch Message-ID: Bugs item #1537725, was opened at 2006-08-09 15:32 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1537725&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Outlook Group: 1.0.4 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Justin Chudgar (justinchudgar) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Outlook 2007 Beta 2 will not launch Initial Comment: Outlook 2007 Beta 2 will not launch after installation of SpamBayes. >From Office Event Log: ID: 6, Application Name: Microsoft Office Outlook, Application Version: 12.0.4017.1006, Microsoft Office Version: 12.0.4017.1006. This session lasted 1 seconds with 0 seconds of active time. This session ended with a crash. No log file found. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1537725&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Tue Aug 15 23:02:01 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:02:01 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1540935 ] Problem w/ Centrino Duo? Message-ID: Bugs item #1540935, was opened at 2006-08-15 17:02 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1540935&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Rich (rdeyoung) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Problem w/ Centrino Duo? Initial Comment: I have been running Spambayes for years with great success. I have just purchased a new Dell D620, running the new Centrino Duo processor. I have installed Outlook 2003, then tried to install Spambayes. When I open Outlook after loading Spambayes, it shows it as "disconnected" for a short time, then I get the error reporting screen to send to Microsoft. The log file is blank. Any idea what is going on or how to approach the problem? ?Rich ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1540935&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Wed Aug 16 15:54:04 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 06:54:04 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Support Requests-1388546 ] Can't get SB (Windows) to work with IMAP server Message-ID: Support Requests item #1388546, was opened at 2005-12-23 03:09 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nzlinus You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498104&aid=1388546&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Priority: 5 Submitted By: Greg Bullock (bullock) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Can't get SB (Windows) to work with IMAP server Initial Comment: I loved SpamBayes when I had an POP3 server. Now that I'm using an IMAP email server, I'm trying to get it to work with that. The setup seemed to work OK, but the filtering gives an error message and aborts. I've just installed Python 2.4 and SpamBayes 1.0.4 on my Windows XP system with Outlook Express 6. The "Configuration", "Configure folders to filter" and "Configure folders to train" steps went fine, and SpamBayes correctly identified the available IMAP folders. But I can't seem to get the actual filtering to work. Here's the command line and error response: C:\Python24\Scripts>sb_imapfilter.py -c -t -l 5 SpamBayes IMAP Filter Version 0.6 (January 2005) and engine SpamBayes Engine Version 0.3 (January 2004). Traceback (most recent call last): File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 947, in ? run() File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 933, in run imap_filter.Train() File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 766, in Train num_ham_trained = folder.Train(self.classifier, False) File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 686, in Train for msg in self: File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 613, in __iter__ yield self[key] File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 662, in __getitem__ msg.Save() File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 545, in Save response = imap.uid("SEARCH", "(UNDELETED HEADER %s \"%s\")" % \ File "C:\Python24\lib\imaplib.py", line 725, in uid typ, dat = self._simple_command(name, command, *args) File "C:\Python24\lib\imaplib.py", line 1028, in _simple_command return self._command_complete(name, self._command(name, *args)) File "C:\Python24\lib\imaplib.py", line 865, in _command_complete raise self.error('%s command error: %s %s' % (name, typ, data)) imaplib.error: UID command error: BAD ['UID invalid arguments'] Any help most appreciated. Regards. Greg ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: nzlinus (nzlinus) Date: 2006-08-16 13:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1266208 Hi Greg, I just came across this same problem today, too. I'm using 1.1a2. I don't know if it's the particular server that we're using, but it's sending back data in a slightly different format to what the scripts are expecting (I think). I've managed to hack around that issue and another (separate) one. Being a python newbie, it might not be the most elegant solution, but if anyone else can offer any suggestions, I'd be interested to hear them. So, here's my workaround(in sb_imapfilter.py): I've added another re called FALSE_UID_PART_RE = re.compile(r"^[\s]*(UID) ([\d]+)\)$") and around line 414, I've changed the line if part == ')' to also try a match on the new RE, so that it catches the " UID xx)" data coming back without falling over. See below: def _extract_fetch_data(self, response): """This does the real work of extracting the data, for each message number. """ # We support the following FETCH items: # FLAGS # INTERNALDATE # RFC822 # UID # RFC822.HEADER # BODY.PEEK # All others are ignored. if isinstance(response, types.StringTypes): response = (response,) data = {} expected_literal = None for part in response: # We ignore parentheses by themselves, for convenience. if part == ')' or self.FALSE_UID_PART_RE.match(part): continue if expected_literal: # This should be a literal of a certain size. key, expected_size = expected_literal ## if len(part) != expected_size: ## raise BadIMAPResponseError(\ ## "FETCH response (wrong size literal %d != %d)" % \ ## (len(part), expected_size), response) data[key] = part expected_literal = None continue I noticed another issue while training, which has to do with the SEARCH commands that are being issued. Again, it seems like the server doesn't like the syntax being used. Rather than CNGH30 UID SEARCH (UNDELETED HEADER X-Spambayes-MailId "1155728489") it seems to like the following: CNGH30 UID SEARCH UNDELETED HEADER "X-Spambayes-MailId" 1155728489 So, I made the following small change around line 732: # search_string = "(UNDELETED HEADER %s \"%s\")" % \ # (options["Headers", "mailid_header_name"], # self.id.replace('\\',r'\\').replace('"',r'\"')) search_string = ["UNDELETED","HEADER",options["Headers", "mailid_header_name"], self.id.replace('\\',r'\\').replace('"',r'\"'),] response = self.imap_server.uid("SEARCH", *search_string) data = self.imap_server.check_response("search " + " ".join(search_string), response) I've removed the parentheses and the quote marks (which are added where necessary in the IMAP library), and split the string, so that the IMAP library will quote just one piece of the string at a time. And as a consequence, I've had to add the " ".join(search_string) so that the concatenation works. Remember, this is very hacky, and might cause problems elsewhere, but for now it seems to have resolved this issue for me. Cheers, Lin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Greg Bullock (bullock) Date: 2005-12-24 05:31 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1131257 I just switched to SpamBayes 1.1a1 and tried again. I get a different error message now, but I'm still just as stumped as before about how to solve this or even how to look into the error. Here's the command line and new error message (this time with some debugging information): C:\Python24\Scripts>sb_imapfilter.py -i 4 -t SpamBayes IMAP Filter Version 1.1a1 (April 2005). 22:51.52 > CBHD1 LOGIN "*********@******.com" "********" 22:51.57 < CBHD1 OK LOGIN completed 22:51.57 > CBHD2 SELECT Chisato 22:51.63 < * 0 EXISTS 22:51.82 < * 0 RECENT 22:51.82 < * OK [UIDVALIDITY 0] UIDs valid 22:51.82 < * FLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen \Draft) 22:51.82 < * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen \Draft)] 22:51.82 < CBHD2 OK [READ-WRITE] SELECT completed 22:51.82 > CBHD3 UID SEARCH UNDELETED 22:51.88 < CBHD3 OK UID completed 22:51.88 > CBHD4 SELECT Personal 22:51.95 < * 85 EXISTS 22:52.13 < * 0 RECENT 22:52.13 < * OK [UIDVALIDITY 0] UIDs valid 22:52.13 < * FLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen \Draft) 22:52.13 < * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen \Draft)] 22:52.13 < CBHD4 OK [READ-WRITE] SELECT completed 22:52.13 > CBHD5 UID SEARCH UNDELETED 22:52.18 < * SEARCH 131 133 143 146 147 148 158 161 162 166 170 171 172 174 17 7 178 179 180 186 190 191 192 194 198 199 206 211 212 214 215 216 220 224 228 23 2 237 238 242 265 266 267 273 278 279 287 289 290 294 295 296 298 299 300 310 32 3 324 325 326 328 330 335 336 337 338 340 341 342 343 344 345 347 348 349 350 35 1 352 353 354 356 357 358 359 361 22:52.33 < CBHD5 OK UID completed 22:52.33 > CBHD6 UID FETCH 131 RFC822.HEADER 22:52.53 < * 2 FETCH (RFC822.HEADER {935} 22:52.54 read literal size 935 22:52.54 < UID 131) 22:52.54 < CBHD6 OK UID completed Traceback (most recent call last): File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 1203, in ? run() File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 1181, in run imap_filter.Train() File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 945, in Train num_trained = folder.Train(self.classifier, is_spam) File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 829, in Train for msg in self: File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 740, in __iter__ yield self[key] File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 772, in __getitem__ data = self.imap_server.extract_fetch_data(response_data) File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 399, in extract_fetch_data msg_data = self._extract_fetch_data(msg) File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 372, in _extract_fetch_data raise BadIMAPResponseError("FETCH response", response) __main__.BadIMAPResponseError: The command 'FETCH response' failed to give an OK response. (' UID 131)',) Thanks. Greg ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498104&aid=1388546&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Thu Aug 17 00:05:14 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:05:14 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1103976 ] Outlook.exe will not terminate when launched via mailto Message-ID: Bugs item #1103976, was opened at 2005-01-17 10:56 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sadie_187 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1103976&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Outlook Group: 1.1.x Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: robert (elitemrp) Assigned to: Kenny Pitt (kpitt) Summary: Outlook.exe will not terminate when launched via mailto Initial Comment: I first ran into this problem a few months ago at work. But at the time I thought it was related to a custom program we run here. But now I noticed I can easily reproduce the problem on any computer running SpamBayes+Outlook 2003 on Windows XP. Basically, I will open Outlook via the icon to read mail. I will then close Outlook, and if I have Task Manager open, I will see that Outlook.exe closes correctly. Now if I launch a mailto: link (or use a program that launches a new mail), where the Compose Mail window opens, but not the actual outlook program, the problem occurs. If I close the compose mail window, by either clicking Send, or closing it without sending, the OUTLOOK.EXE task will not exit. If I launch Outlook again, I'll now have multiple instances of OUTLOOK.EXE in task manager. Now the multiple instances is what caused the problem with our custom software at work, but that has nothing to do with the fact that Outlook does not exit correctly when running Spambayes and having a program/mailto link open the Compose Mail window. Yes I realize there have been 2 previous tickets about OUTLOOK.EXE closing, but none came to the conclusion that it's caused by a Compose Mail window. And both are closed without a solution. I have tested this on several computers and have tried multiple things to try to fix it (such as renaming extend.dat and other files) and nothing seems to work. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Sadie (sadie_187) Date: 2006-08-16 17:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1577414 Problem: Outlook 2003 does not terminate the outlook.exe process at closing of the program. Possible Solution (worked for me) : Active sync for my outlook was causing the process to hang. Removed the calendar, contacts sink option; which I rarely use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nytetears (nytetears) Date: 2006-05-23 18:12 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1369127 To be honest Outlook 2003 was fine for a bit after disabling the spam blocker and then it started with the refusing to shut down again. I finally gave up and paid $5 for an addin that makes sure the program is shut down (http://www.daveswebsite.com/software/olshutdown/ ). I truely do not believe it is SpamBayes causing the trouble as I have it without this program. I have found it often happens if I click on an email link in a browser when the program is not open. I do know I have had this problem for years and I don't use addons in my email as a general rule. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Christian Blackburn (seier) Date: 2006-05-23 16:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=561770 Hi NyteTears, > It seems that the spam filter in outlook is causing it to >hang. I wasn't able to reproduce this in Outlook 2003, which is where the problem is at for most people. Perhaps you'd like to tell us what version you're using and the exact steps you took to resolve this. As far as I can tell the problem the rest of us are experiencing is indeed related to SpamBayes' plugin and not outlook itself, although I'm sure in the past with all those security updates the scenario you've described must have been true at least once. Thanks, Christian Blackburn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2005-12-05 04:24 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 See also: [ 1336405 ] Add-In breaks MAPI control http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1336405&group_id=61702&atid=498104 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nytetears (nytetears) Date: 2005-10-27 14:59 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1369127 I had this problem on my computer and tried removing various different program to fix it. Nothing worked. I have found it is not related to any program outside of outlook. It is an outlook problem. It seems that the spam filter in outlook is causing it to hang. Once I turned off the spam filter that came with outlook I never had the program hang once. I could not tell you why it does this or a fix for it beyond turning the option off but that is the cause of outlook remaining open in the task manager. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Kip Cartwright (kcartwri) Date: 2005-03-29 19:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=192708 I have the same problem on Outlook 2003. No problem with Outlook XP (2002). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: fsnyder (fsnyder) Date: 2005-02-25 17:00 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1227716 This behavior of the Outlook.exe not being stopped properly can be duplicated using the following VBScript code. OPTION EXPLICIT On error Resume Next err.clear Dim oOutlookApp, oOutlookNS Set oOutlookApp = GetObject(,"Outlook.Application") if Err <> 0 then MsgBox "Outlook not currently running." & VbCrLf & "Creating New Outlook Application. I'll kill it when I'm done" set oOutlookApp = CreateObject ("Outlook.Application") else MsgBox "Outlook was running. I'll kill it anyway when I'm done." End If MsgBox oOutlookApp.name & " version# " & oOutlookApp.version MsgBox "Now I'll kill the Outlook.exe process the clean way" oOutlookApp.Quit set oOutlookNS = Nothing set oOutlookApp = Nothing MsgBox "END" Run it and watch the TaskManager for when the Outlook.exe process gets created, and killed (as long as the SpamBayes Add-In is NOT activated in Outlook) This should normally kill the process unless some other add- in or anti-virus code is not allowing Outlook to exit cleanly. Hope this Helps -fsnyder ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Hal Smith (bpu_webguy) Date: 2005-02-03 13:00 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=842378 One other source of hanging OL up, with or without Spambayes is ActiveSync for your PDA, celll phone or whatever. AS does tend to work behind your back, a little bit. One of the reasons I love Process Explorer from System Internals... -h ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Gil (spambayes411) Date: 2005-02-02 05:52 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1210353 I've discovered this is not limited to the mailto function. I use a program called SynchPST to keep outlook sychronized between my home computer and my laptop. When SynchPST opens, I see it in the task manager and it opens Outlook as well. After I synch my PST files, I close SynchPST. It closes but Outlook remains in the task manager. If the Spambayes add-in is not loaded, then both SynchPST and Outlook quit as they should. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2005-01-24 18:22 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 Thanks Kenny :) I don't really know what might be causing this, but I guess you could start by checking to see if the spambayes log gets to the "addin terminating" part. Let me know if I can help at all (though I don't have OL2003 anywhere). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Kenny Pitt (kpitt) Date: 2005-01-24 11:23 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=859086 Yep, I was able to confirm this problem on Outlook 2003. If I activate a mailto link with SpamBayes loaded and enabled, OUTLOOK.EXE will not exit when I close the compose window. If I disable SpamBayes filtering from SpamBayes Manager, OUTLOOK.EXE still doesn't exit. If I completely disable loading of SpamBayes from the COM Add-ins dialog then OUTLOOK.EXE closes properly when I close the compose window. I'll look into this further when I get a chance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2005-01-24 00:53 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 Maybe this is specific to Outlook 2003 then? Kenny: you've got 2003, right? Can you try and replicate this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: robert (elitemrp) Date: 2005-01-21 06:49 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1198932 Yes, it only happens with SpamBayes installed. I install SpamBayes, set up the toolbar, etc Close Outlook, type mailto:blah at blah.com in a browser or click a mail link and it opens the Compose Mail window. Once I close this window, Outlook.exe ramains in the task list. If I click another mailto link I'll have 2 stuck open, then 3, etc If I have only 1 process loaded and it's the main Outlook window, when I click a mailto link it will work fine since it doesn't load a separate outlook.exe process. It only does this when the main outlook program isn't loaded. Once I uninstall SpamBayes or uncheck it in the COM Add-Ins area in Outlook, this problem goes away. As soon as I close a Compose Mail window, OUTLOOK.EXE terminates correctly. I've tried this on several PCs, some with fresh installs of XP/ Outlook, some with several months old installs and other applications, it's the same on each. Thanks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2005-01-20 22:17 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 Have you tried this without SpamBayes installed? I get the same behaviour without SpamBayes, which says to me it's an Outlook problem, not a SpamBayes one. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1103976&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Thu Aug 17 01:01:37 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:01:37 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Support Requests-1388546 ] Can't get SB (Windows) to work with IMAP server Message-ID: Support Requests item #1388546, was opened at 2005-12-22 19:09 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bullock You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498104&aid=1388546&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Priority: 5 Submitted By: Greg Bullock (bullock) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Can't get SB (Windows) to work with IMAP server Initial Comment: I loved SpamBayes when I had an POP3 server. Now that I'm using an IMAP email server, I'm trying to get it to work with that. The setup seemed to work OK, but the filtering gives an error message and aborts. I've just installed Python 2.4 and SpamBayes 1.0.4 on my Windows XP system with Outlook Express 6. The "Configuration", "Configure folders to filter" and "Configure folders to train" steps went fine, and SpamBayes correctly identified the available IMAP folders. But I can't seem to get the actual filtering to work. Here's the command line and error response: C:\Python24\Scripts>sb_imapfilter.py -c -t -l 5 SpamBayes IMAP Filter Version 0.6 (January 2005) and engine SpamBayes Engine Version 0.3 (January 2004). Traceback (most recent call last): File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 947, in ? run() File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 933, in run imap_filter.Train() File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 766, in Train num_ham_trained = folder.Train(self.classifier, False) File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 686, in Train for msg in self: File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 613, in __iter__ yield self[key] File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 662, in __getitem__ msg.Save() File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 545, in Save response = imap.uid("SEARCH", "(UNDELETED HEADER %s \"%s\")" % \ File "C:\Python24\lib\imaplib.py", line 725, in uid typ, dat = self._simple_command(name, command, *args) File "C:\Python24\lib\imaplib.py", line 1028, in _simple_command return self._command_complete(name, self._command(name, *args)) File "C:\Python24\lib\imaplib.py", line 865, in _command_complete raise self.error('%s command error: %s %s' % (name, typ, data)) imaplib.error: UID command error: BAD ['UID invalid arguments'] Any help most appreciated. Regards. Greg ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Greg Bullock (bullock) Date: 2006-08-16 16:01 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1131257 Thank you very much, Lin. I'll give that a try. Regards. Greg ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: nzlinus (nzlinus) Date: 2006-08-16 06:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1266208 Hi Greg, I just came across this same problem today, too. I'm using 1.1a2. I don't know if it's the particular server that we're using, but it's sending back data in a slightly different format to what the scripts are expecting (I think). I've managed to hack around that issue and another (separate) one. Being a python newbie, it might not be the most elegant solution, but if anyone else can offer any suggestions, I'd be interested to hear them. So, here's my workaround(in sb_imapfilter.py): I've added another re called FALSE_UID_PART_RE = re.compile(r"^[\s]*(UID) ([\d]+)\)$") and around line 414, I've changed the line if part == ')' to also try a match on the new RE, so that it catches the " UID xx)" data coming back without falling over. See below: def _extract_fetch_data(self, response): """This does the real work of extracting the data, for each message number. """ # We support the following FETCH items: # FLAGS # INTERNALDATE # RFC822 # UID # RFC822.HEADER # BODY.PEEK # All others are ignored. if isinstance(response, types.StringTypes): response = (response,) data = {} expected_literal = None for part in response: # We ignore parentheses by themselves, for convenience. if part == ')' or self.FALSE_UID_PART_RE.match(part): continue if expected_literal: # This should be a literal of a certain size. key, expected_size = expected_literal ## if len(part) != expected_size: ## raise BadIMAPResponseError(\ ## "FETCH response (wrong size literal %d != %d)" % \ ## (len(part), expected_size), response) data[key] = part expected_literal = None continue I noticed another issue while training, which has to do with the SEARCH commands that are being issued. Again, it seems like the server doesn't like the syntax being used. Rather than CNGH30 UID SEARCH (UNDELETED HEADER X-Spambayes-MailId "1155728489") it seems to like the following: CNGH30 UID SEARCH UNDELETED HEADER "X-Spambayes-MailId" 1155728489 So, I made the following small change around line 732: # search_string = "(UNDELETED HEADER %s \"%s\")" % \ # (options["Headers", "mailid_header_name"], # self.id.replace('\\',r'\\').replace('"',r'\"')) search_string = ["UNDELETED","HEADER",options["Headers", "mailid_header_name"], self.id.replace('\\',r'\\').replace('"',r'\"'),] response = self.imap_server.uid("SEARCH", *search_string) data = self.imap_server.check_response("search " + " ".join(search_string), response) I've removed the parentheses and the quote marks (which are added where necessary in the IMAP library), and split the string, so that the IMAP library will quote just one piece of the string at a time. And as a consequence, I've had to add the " ".join(search_string) so that the concatenation works. Remember, this is very hacky, and might cause problems elsewhere, but for now it seems to have resolved this issue for me. Cheers, Lin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Greg Bullock (bullock) Date: 2005-12-23 21:31 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1131257 I just switched to SpamBayes 1.1a1 and tried again. I get a different error message now, but I'm still just as stumped as before about how to solve this or even how to look into the error. Here's the command line and new error message (this time with some debugging information): C:\Python24\Scripts>sb_imapfilter.py -i 4 -t SpamBayes IMAP Filter Version 1.1a1 (April 2005). 22:51.52 > CBHD1 LOGIN "*********@******.com" "********" 22:51.57 < CBHD1 OK LOGIN completed 22:51.57 > CBHD2 SELECT Chisato 22:51.63 < * 0 EXISTS 22:51.82 < * 0 RECENT 22:51.82 < * OK [UIDVALIDITY 0] UIDs valid 22:51.82 < * FLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen \Draft) 22:51.82 < * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen \Draft)] 22:51.82 < CBHD2 OK [READ-WRITE] SELECT completed 22:51.82 > CBHD3 UID SEARCH UNDELETED 22:51.88 < CBHD3 OK UID completed 22:51.88 > CBHD4 SELECT Personal 22:51.95 < * 85 EXISTS 22:52.13 < * 0 RECENT 22:52.13 < * OK [UIDVALIDITY 0] UIDs valid 22:52.13 < * FLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen \Draft) 22:52.13 < * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen \Draft)] 22:52.13 < CBHD4 OK [READ-WRITE] SELECT completed 22:52.13 > CBHD5 UID SEARCH UNDELETED 22:52.18 < * SEARCH 131 133 143 146 147 148 158 161 162 166 170 171 172 174 17 7 178 179 180 186 190 191 192 194 198 199 206 211 212 214 215 216 220 224 228 23 2 237 238 242 265 266 267 273 278 279 287 289 290 294 295 296 298 299 300 310 32 3 324 325 326 328 330 335 336 337 338 340 341 342 343 344 345 347 348 349 350 35 1 352 353 354 356 357 358 359 361 22:52.33 < CBHD5 OK UID completed 22:52.33 > CBHD6 UID FETCH 131 RFC822.HEADER 22:52.53 < * 2 FETCH (RFC822.HEADER {935} 22:52.54 read literal size 935 22:52.54 < UID 131) 22:52.54 < CBHD6 OK UID completed Traceback (most recent call last): File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 1203, in ? run() File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 1181, in run imap_filter.Train() File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 945, in Train num_trained = folder.Train(self.classifier, is_spam) File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 829, in Train for msg in self: File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 740, in __iter__ yield self[key] File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 772, in __getitem__ data = self.imap_server.extract_fetch_data(response_data) File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 399, in extract_fetch_data msg_data = self._extract_fetch_data(msg) File "C:\Python24\Scripts\sb_imapfilter.py", line 372, in _extract_fetch_data raise BadIMAPResponseError("FETCH response", response) __main__.BadIMAPResponseError: The command 'FETCH response' failed to give an OK response. (' UID 131)',) Thanks. Greg ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498104&aid=1388546&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Thu Aug 17 14:12:18 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 05:12:18 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1541910 ] 1.1a2: Some emails corrupts training database Message-ID: Bugs item #1541910, was opened at 2006-08-17 14:12 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1541910&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Outlook Group: 1.1.x Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Willy Tenner (willytenner) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: 1.1a2: Some emails corrupts training database Initial Comment: Hi all! Some emails corrupts the training database. AssertionError: Token seen in more ham than ham trained. Since several versions of SpamBayes for Outlook we have problems while training and rebuilding the spambayes database. This includes also the newest version of spambayes v1.1a2. We are using Outlook 2003 SP1. I have isolated one little mail which is causing these troubles. I archived it as a PST-file called HAM-archive.pst Here's the way to reproduce the error. In Outlook create two folders called HAM and SPAM for training purposes. Put some spam mails in SPAM and e.g. two good mails in HAM. Then, add the mentioned PST-file as outlook data file to outlook, open it and "copy" the included mail to the previously created HAM folder. Start SpamBayes manager and train and rebuild the database. In the logfile you see the message: ... Checked 3 in folder HAM - 3 new entries found. Checked 98 in folder SPAM - 96 new entries found. Saving bayes database with 96 spam and 2 good messages ... Aha. Although spambayes found 3 new entries in HAM it stored only 2 good messages in the database. Next step. Try to delete a mail from inbox as spam. Uups. A message pops up: "It appears your SpamBayes training database is corrupt." For more details see the attached log file. The problem seems to be the small email I attached. If you change only one bit in the email the problem disappears. Maybe spambayes is building a checksum or something else and with this mail the checksum is an invalid number? Can anyone follow me? Kind regards from Berlin-Germany willytenner ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1541910&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Tue Aug 22 15:33:52 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 06:33:52 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Support Requests-1544574 ] spambayes-1.0.4.exe vs MS 2003 server Message-ID: Support Requests item #1544574, was opened at 2006-08-22 13:33 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498104&aid=1544574&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Install Problem (example) Group: v1.0 (example) Status: Open Priority: 5 Submitted By: p yannone (pyannone) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: spambayes-1.0.4.exe vs MS 2003 server Initial Comment: spambayes-1.0.4.exe OS - Microsoft server 2003 Outlook 2000 After installing Spambayes Outlook will only try to start but will close before doing so. Is there any hope for this combination of OS, application and SB version? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498104&aid=1544574&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Wed Aug 23 04:20:20 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:20:20 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1527425 ] Same thing Message-ID: <200608230220.k7N2KKu2007745@sc8-sf-db2-new-b.sourceforge.net> Bugs item #1527425, was opened at 2006-07-23 11:36 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1527425&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Outlook Group: None >Status: Closed Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: pjmarkert (pjmarkert) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Same thing Initial Comment: Same problem with outlook with 2000, 2003 and 2007 beta with no add-ins. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: SourceForge Robot (sf-robot) Date: 2006-08-22 19:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1312539 This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter did not respond within 14 days (the time period specified by the administrator of this Tracker). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2006-08-08 02:43 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 "Same problem" is very vague. Same as what? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1527425&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Wed Aug 23 21:58:29 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:58:29 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Feature Requests-1101734 ] popup when processing Message-ID: Feature Requests item #1101734, was opened at 2005-01-13 16:03 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by theomurpse You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498106&aid=1101734&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Outlook Group: Next Release (example) Status: Open Priority: 5 Submitted By: remy_h (remy_h) Assigned to: Mark Hammond (mhammond) Summary: popup when processing Initial Comment: Hello, I could not live without SpamBayes 's Outlook addin today , and I know that localization will be included in next release. Therefore , I think the outlook's addin miss one thing ( I haven't found in requests ...and I hope my search was good ;o) as it doesn't run as proxy : IMO, make a pop-up appears when new/unread mails are checked by SpamBayes will be very useful, when users launch outlook and their mailbox is full with new mails. This pop-up could says "Please wait while SpamBayes is proceeding" ( or something else, as my english is certainly bad ;o) Also , this functionnality could be disabled in SpamBayes Manager. I don't know if this is possible ( I don't have any developpment knowledge ) but I'd appreciate it. Anyway , I'd like to congratulate all of the SpamBayes team members for this great software. Regards Remy remy_h at users.sourceforge.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Kyle (theomurpse) Date: 2006-08-23 19:58 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1026720 I could write this, but it would mean adding a requirement for running SpamBayes of having wxPython (a GUI library) installed. I'll give doing the CVS thing a try in the next day or so (perhaps tonight). I've never worked on any projects like this before with CVS and all that, but have been coding in Python for quite a while, so I can help. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498106&aid=1101734&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Mon Aug 28 14:40:09 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 05:40:09 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1547894 ] Web pages need to be updated to reflect new CVS paths Message-ID: Bugs item #1547894, was opened at 2006-08-28 08:40 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1547894&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Jesse Pelton (jessepelton) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Web pages need to be updated to reflect new CVS paths Initial Comment: Some number of pages on the SpamBayes web site use old-style SourceForge CVS paths like http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/spambayes/... rather than http://spambayes.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/spambayes/.... I noticed the problem on the following pages; there may be others: http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/windows.html http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/apps/outlook/bugs.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1547894&group_id=61702 From noreply at sourceforge.net Mon Aug 28 21:44:47 2006 From: noreply at sourceforge.net (SourceForge.net) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:44:47 -0700 Subject: [spambayes-bugs] [ spambayes-Bugs-1449691 ] Cannot see child folders in "Browse..." to set training. Message-ID: Bugs item #1449691, was opened at 2006-03-14 10:57 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sunapee You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1449691&group_id=61702 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Outlook Group: 1.0.4 >Status: Closed Resolution: Wont Fix Priority: 6 Submitted By: Sunapee (sunapee) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Cannot see child folders in "Browse..." to set training. Initial Comment: Outlook 2003 on Exchange Server 2000 SpamBayes v 1.0.4 I have been using SpamBayes for a long time, with no problems. Yesterday it started to act up and I uninstalled it, removed its toolbar in Outlook, and reinstalled it. The install seemed to go fine, but when I try to select the folders to train on, I cannot get my mailbox to expand. When I click on the + sign, nothing happens. When I try to check my in box, I am told that it is a top level folder and to select a child folder. But I cannot get to my child folders.... Any help would be appreciated! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Sunapee (sunapee) Date: 2006-08-28 14:44 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1475290 Just installed 1.1a3 and all is fine. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Sunapee (sunapee) Date: 2006-06-12 10:40 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1475290 I just re-opened this after I installed "spambayes- 1.1a2.exe" and still have the problem. Prior to installing I uninstalled the old version and deleted my spambayes directory under program files and my user in Documents & Setting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tony Meyer (anadelonbrin) Date: 2006-04-02 06:31 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=552329 This was a problem with the version of pywin32 at the time, and has been since fixed (so 1.1a2 will include the fix, or if there is a 1.0.5 that will include it). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=498103&aid=1449691&group_id=61702