Fine-tuning SpamAssassin

By Neil Youngman

SpamAssassin, as most of our readers will know, is a popular spam classifier on Linux. This article assumes that you already have SpamAssassin installed and working. If you are interested in running SpamAssassin, but do not yet have it set up, there is a useful introduction at https://linux.org.mt/article/killspam.

When I set up SpamAssassin in Mandrake 9.2, it came very close to picking up 100% of my spam. Over time, however, many of the spammers have figured out how to fine tune their spam and bypass the default ruleset. I find the default setup still picks up at least half the spam, maybe two thirds on a good day, but too much leaks through. If the spammers are tuning their messages, I guess the only thing to do is to tune my scoring. There are at least 8 possible ways of improving SpamAssassin's hit rate.

1. Blacklisting known offenders
2. DNS Blocklists
3. Enable Bayesian filtering
4. Reduce the point threshold for spam
5. Increase the scores on existing rulesets
6. Upgrade SpamAssassin to the latest version
7. Install more rulesets
8. Write your own rulesets

Configuring SpamAssassin

Fine-tuning SpamAssassin is, of course, done by editing the appropriate configuration file. If the changes are just for your account, then you edit ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs. If you are making global changes, they go in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf (and require root access.) I strongly recommend testing changes in your local configuration before changing the global configuration.

The options available in your configuration file are listed in https://spamassassin.org/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html, as well as in the relevant manpage (see "man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf".)

SpamAssassin's Scoring Mechanism

In principle, SpamAssassin's scoring mechanism is simple. There are a set of rules for identifying spam, scores associated with those rules, and an overall threshold score. If the total score for all the rules triggered by a message reaches the threshold, that message is marked as spam.

Most of the complexity is in the rules, but it's rarely necessary to roll your own SpamAssassin rules. Adjusting the threshold and the scores associated with existing rules is much simpler and can be very effective. If that's not enough, there are also additional rulesets available to download. Of course, if you think writing you own rulesets sounds like a fun thing to do, I've included a pointer below to get you started.

Most of the rules are listed in https://spamassassin.org/tests.html along with their associated scores, but the scores listed did not match those in my configuration files. They were probably from a newer release. You will probably find the default scores for your configuration in /usr/share/spamassassin/50_scores.cf, where there are 4 scores associated with each rule. The rule chosen depends on whether Bayesian analysis (see below) and network tests are enabled. Where only one score is supplied, that score is always used. Other options, such as relative scores, are described in the aforementioned documentation.

False positives, whitelisting, and blacklisting

No spam filter gets it right all the time, and there are 2 types of errors. False negatives are bad, because that means a spam was missed and allowed to slip through the net. False positives, however, are worse, because you may miss something you should have seen, which has been tagged as spam. No spam filter should ever be configured to automatically delete email without human review. Spam should always be dropped into a quarantine area, which should be reviewed at frequent intervals to ensure that genuine emails aren't missed.

Regular reviews are even more important as you tune your settings. No matter how careful you are, there is no guarantee that any change to the settings won't cause some collateral damage. Even with the default setup, you will see some false positives, e.g. newsletters from The National Trust and The Royal Opera House get marked as spam, so a key part of managing your spam - especially in the beginning - involves reviewing the hits and determine which senders you need to "whitelist".

Whitelisting is usually done with the settings whitelist_from and whitelist_to. These can be repeated as many times as you like. Simple globbing patterns (see "man bash" and search for "Pattern Matching" for a description) are used to specify wildcard matches. E.g., '?' matches a single character and '*' matches any number of characters (including zero.) whitelist_from and whitelist_to subtract 100 points from the score, making it very rare for matching emails to reach the spam threshold.

whitelist_from nice.but_clueless@example.net
whitelist_from *@importantclient.example.com

Also available are options more_spam_to, all_spam_to. According to the documentation, "There are three levels of To-whitelisting, whitelist_to, more_spam_to and all_spam_to. Users in the first level may still get some spammish mails blocked, but users inall_spam_to should never get mail blocked."

You should consider using all_spam_to for postmaster addresses. It's very annoying if someone tries to report a spam and has their report blocked or rejected as spam.

You may sometimes see a large number of emails slipping through from a particular sender. Usually sender IDs are forged and chosen randomly. There is little point blacklisting most senders, but sometimes it can be worthwhile. A more useful option is blacklisting based on recipients. If your email address is a.white@example.com you may see a lot of spam with nearby addresses, such as a.wharton@example.com and a.winter@example.com in the cc list and these recipients can be blacklisted.

According to the documentation blacklisting is done with the settings blacklist_from and blacklist_to, but you may find thatblacklist_to doesn't work on versions of SpamAssassin older than 2.6.0.

blacklist_from *@evilspammers.example.org
blacklist_to a.wharton@example.com
blacklist_to *.wi*@example.com

There are a number of other settings for blacklisting and whitelisting. Global settings can be overridden locally by unwhitelist_from, unwhitelist_to, unblacklist_from and unblacklist_to. Please read the documentation to find out more about these and other available settings.

DNS Blocklists

DNS Blocklists are another form of blacklisting. They are externally maintained lists of mail servers which have been identified as sources of spam or open relays. These are sometimes referred to as RBLs (Realtime Blackhole Lists).

SpamAssassin checks the headers to see if the email has been relayed through any hosts with matches in certain blocklists. This is known not to work with a number of configurations because it only checks the first DNS entry in resolv.conf; if this does not point to a working DNS server, it will not work. This is a known problem under Mandrake 9.2.

DNS Blocklists can be disabled with the option skip_rbl_checks.

Enable Bayesian filtering

Bayesian analysis is a statistical technique in which the frequency of words in emails are analysed, according to how often they appear in spam and how often they appear in other emails. The content of incoming emails is then analysed to assign a probability of the email being spam.

Bayesian analysis is a feature of recent versions of SpamAssassin and I find it very effective. Some work is required to build and maintain the database, but it is well worth the small effort involved.

To configure SpamAssassin to use Bayesian analysis you add the line

use_bayes	1

to your user_prefs file.

You won't see any matches for Bayesian analysis yet. The algorithm requires at least 200 spam emails in it's database before it will assign any probability to your emails. To get to this point collect your spam emails in a separate mailbox and run

sa-learn --spam --mbox ~/Mail/spamtrap 

Often you will see that the number of emails it has learned from (analysed) is less than the number that appear to be in the mailbox it is learning from. This is because it has detected that some emails are duplicates of emails it has seen before.

You should also give it your "ham" emails to learn from using the command

 
 $ sa-learn --ham --mbox ~/Mail/inbox

Once it has learned from more than 200 spam emails you should start seeing matches in the headers like

BAYES_90           (4.5 points)  BODY: Bayesian classifier says spam probability is 90 to 99%

Don't stop feeding it data when it starts to work. The more data it has, the more accurate it should be. If you are short of disk space, you should bear in mind that the database can get quite large. Mine is about 10MB.

If at any time you accidentally classify a message incorrectly this can be corrected. Move the message to a temporary folder, then use the command

sa-learn --forget --mbox ~/Mail/temp 

then move it back to the correct folder and classify it as usual.

Reduce the points threshold for spam

The simplest approach to catching more spam is just to reduce the points threshold. This can be quite effective. The default is to mark a message as spam when it scores 5 points or more. Reducing this will catch a lot more spam, but it will also increase the risk of false positives.

In my experience a threshold of 3.0 or 3.5 will increase the amount of spam caught dramatically, but won't produce significantly more false positives. This is achieved very simply by changing or adding the required_hits setting, e.g.

required_hits	3.5

If you have been using SpamAssassin for a while you can use grep to assess the level at which you are likely to see a significant increase in false positives. This is done by searching your mail folders for X-Spam-Status header lines with different scores.

$ grep 'X-Spam-Status: .* hits=[5-9]\.' ~/Mail/inbox | wc -l
      1
$ grep 'X-Spam-Status: .* hits=[34]\.' ~/Mail/inbox | wc -l
      4
$ grep 'X-Spam-Status: .* hits=2\.' ~/Mail/inbox | wc -l
     10
$

The first command shows that there is only 1 mail in my inbox that has scored between 5.0 and 9.9 points. The second that there are 4 mails that scored between 3.0 and 4.9 points and the third that 10 mails scored between 2.0 and 2.9 points. It should be borne in mind that this ignores all emails from before setting up SpamAssassin and all emails that you have deleted since that time.

Increase the scores on existing rulesets

After you've got Bayesian analysis working and you've decided on the threshold that's appropriate for you, there will no doubt still be some spam getting through. It's time to delve into the headers and find out what rules need higher scores.

Before we start, I should say that the default scores have been tuned using a genetic algorithm. Should you trust your judgment against that algorithm? My opinion is that spam is evolving. Many of them are tested against the default SpamAssassin rules and fine tuned until they pass. Also everyone's spam problem is different. Statistically, what works for a large database of spam, possibly going back years, isn't necessarily the best for your current spam problem. If you find that your tuning efforts make the problem worse, you can always go back to the defaults.

Incoming messages should have some headers that indicate which rules were triggered. These look like:

X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.0 required=3.5
	tests=BAYES_50,USER_AGENT
	version=2.55

These headers will not normally be displayed, but any decent mail client will have an option to display all headers. In kmail this option is View->Headers->All.

If you do not see these headers when you have all headers displayed, take a look at the section "Other Options" at the end of this article for the option controlling headers.

Looking at the matches given above, Bayesian analysis has given the mail a 50-60% probability of being spam. I have sufficient confidence in the Bayesian analysis to make anything with a probability of 50% or more spam, so I set the scores for those rules to my current threshold of 3.5.

Here's another one that sneaked in under the radar.

X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=3.5
        tests=HTML_20_30,MIME_HTML_ONLY,USER_AGENT
        version=2.55

The USER_AGENT rule isn't very interesting. Most mail has a user-agent header and this scores 0.001. We'll leave that alone. The other tests seem to contradict each other, one apparently saying that that the message is all HTML and the other that it's 20-30% HTML. I would guess that the 20-30% is the ratio of HTML tags to text, so it can be all HTML, but not all tags.

So, how should we adjust the scoring? HTML_20_30 matches 6 times in 8 months of legitimate email, but it matches a third of the mail currently in my spam folder, so it should be scored highly, but not highly enough to be conclusive on it's own. It seems to be scored at 1.47, which may be a bit low, but it's not far wrong. MIME_HTML_ONLY matched 1 legitimate email, but matches 95% of my spam. Strangely this only scores 0.1. I'm going to treat it as almost conclusive and score it at 3.0, requiring only another 0.5 points to trigger a match on my threshold of 3.5.

Another email got through with these matches:

X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=3.5
        tests=GET_IT_NOW,HTML_10_20
        version=2.55

Looking at my email, I find that HTML_10_20 matches a lot of legitimate email, as well as spam and GET_IT_NOW only matches 1 spam.

$ grep HTML_10_20 ~/Mail/spamtrap | wc -l
     19
$ grep HTML_10_20 ~/Mail/inbox ~/Mail/mailing-lists | wc -l
      8
$ grep GET_IT_NOW ~/Mail/inbox ~/Mail/mailing-lists | wc -l
      0
$ grep GET_IT_NOW ~/Mail/spamtrap  | wc -l
      1
$

In this case I can't justify changing the scoring for either rule.

Upgrade SpamAssassin to the latest version

If, like me, you aren't running the very latest distribution you may find that you are a little behind the curve. The standard rulesets are always evolving and just running a more recent version should help to catch more Spam.

As I write the latest stable version of SpamAssassin is 2.63 and 3.00 is under development. The latest versions can be downloaded from https://spamassassin.apache.org/downloads.html.

Install more rulesets

There are custom rulesets available on the SpamAssassin Wiki, the SpamAssassin Rules Emporium (SARE) and elsewhere.

I have not installed any of these rulesets and I am not recommending any of them. You should read the documentation and evaluate their suitability carefully before installing any new rulesets and monitor the results once they are installed.

Write your own rulesets

Rolling your own SpamAssassin rules is likely to be a minority interest, but I guess it will appeal to some of our readers. If you spot a pattern in your spam that there doesn't seem to be a rule for, or you are just terminally curious then read "A straightforward guide to writing your own add-on rules for SpamAssassin", by Matt Kettler.

Other Options

As well as adjusting the scoring, there a a range of options with which you can modify various aspects of SpamAssassin's behaviour. Here are descriptions from the documentation for some that I consider useful.

    rewrite_subject { 0 | 1 } (default: 0)
        By default, the subject lines of suspected spam will not be tagged.
        This can be enabled here.

    always_add_headers { 0 | 1 } (default: 1)
        By default, X-Spam-Status, X-Spam-Checker-Version, (and optionally
        X-Spam-Level) will be added to all messages scanned by SpamAssassin.
        If you don't want to add the headers to non-spam, set this value to
        0. See also always_add_report.

    always_add_report { 0 | 1 } (default: 0)
        By default, mail tagged as spam includes a report, either in the
        headers or in an attachment (report_safe). If you set this to option
        to 1, the report will be included in the X-Spam-Report header, even
        if the message is not tagged as spam. Note that the report text
        always states that the mail is spam, since normally the report is
        only added if the mail is spam.

        This can be useful if you want to know what rules the mail
        triggered, and why it was not tagged as spam. See also
        always_add_headers.

    spam_level_stars { 0 | 1 } (default: 1)
        By default, a header field called "X-Spam-Level" will be added to
        the message, with its value set to a number of asterisks equal to
        the score of the message. In other words, for a message scoring 7.2
        points:

        X-Spam-Level: *******

        This can be useful for MUA rule creation.

    spam_level_char { x (some character, unquoted) } (default: *)
        By default, the "X-Spam-Level" header will use a '*' character with
        its length equal to the score of the message. Some people don't like
        escaping *s though, so you can set the character to anything with
        this option.

        In other words, for a message scoring 7.2 points with this option
        set to .

        X-Spam-Level: .......

Further Information

To find out more about SpamAssassin check out the SpamAssassin web site and FAQ.

 

---

Neil is a programmer, specialising in C++ on Unix and Linux. He has degrees in Computer science and Next Generation Computing.

Neil has worked on a wide range of systems from the control system for the British Gas national grid to video servers for the Home Choice video on demand service. He first programmed computers in 1980 with his school General Studies class, which was allowed access to a mainframe at The National Institute of Oceanography, programmed in Fortran on punch cards.

A computer science degree followed at Queen Mary College, London, then Neil worked for Logica for 3 years before taking an MSc in New Generation Computing at Exeter University.

The next 5 years saw Neil researching parallel simulation algorithms at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, initially on transputers and subsequently on SPARC based parallel systems. Since leaving RSRE, Neil has mostly worked freelance and has worked on financial data feeds, video servers and virus scanning proxies.

Neil first used Unix at college in 1982 and started working on Linux in 1996.

As of May 2004, Neil is working for Wirefast a global messaging company.

Outside of computing, Neil is into motor sport, particularly Formula 1, the World Rally Championship and the British Touring Car Championship. He doesn't race himself. If you've seen Neil's driving, you'll understand why.