14MB per session? I haven't admined email for a while so I may be out of
touch, but it seems like that server should be able to process gigantic
volumes of mail. Not just "a lot" or even "really a lot". What mail setup
is it running? Throttling connections is the right way to go though.
Spoolin
14MB per session? I haven't admined email for a while so I may be out of
touch, but it seems like that server should be able to process gigantic
volumes of mail. Not just "a lot" or even "really a lot". What mail setup
is it running? Throttling connections is the right way to go though.
Spoolin
Dale E Martin said:
> Perhaps SA would be better implemented in something else, but like
> everyone
> else says, memory is cheap. Whatever makes the SA developers most
> effective is fine by me at this point.
As the other post mentioned, try SA+mimedefang if you need to run it on a
box with low
Dale E Martin said:
> Perhaps SA would be better implemented in something else, but like
> everyone
> else says, memory is cheap. Whatever makes the SA developers most
> effective is fine by me at this point.
As the other post mentioned, try SA+mimedefang if you need to run it on a
box with low
> there are couple of solutions to original problem of mr Dale Martin,
> some mentoined by others, like limiting number of connections etc. or
I was the one who said ultimately we throttled our mail via limiting
concurrent connections etc and we've been fine for some time.
> adding ram. the real
al Message-
From: Dale E Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 5:31 AM
To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: You can start saving now
> 128M? My firewall has more than that. My personal firewall... A
> P120or 133...I honestly don't remember. But anyw
On Monday 24 May 2004 13.57, Matej Kovac wrote:
[]
> test what takes
> so long for spamassassin, and report it.
Please file a bug against spamassassin and tell them using perl is a
bug. Perhaps even Severity: important since it affects performance
severely.
Seriously, what was your point of
> there are couple of solutions to original problem of mr Dale Martin,
> some mentoined by others, like limiting number of connections etc. or
I was the one who said ultimately we throttled our mail via limiting
concurrent connections etc and we've been fine for some time.
> adding ram. the real
al Message-
From: Dale E Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 5:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You can start saving now
> 128M? My firewall has more than that. My personal firewall... A
> P120or 133...I honestly don't remember. But anyway who
On Monday 24 May 2004 13.57, Matej Kovac wrote:
[]
> test what takes
> so long for spamassassin, and report it.
Please file a bug against spamassassin and tell them using perl is a
bug. Perhaps even Severity: important since it affects performance
severely.
Seriously, what was your point of
--On Sunday, May 23, 2004 23:30 -0400 Dale E Martin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a colocated machine, put together by the colo. 128M is actually
plenty for handling mail for 10s of people and serving webpages - if you
don't use spamassassin... It's doing fine ever with SA now that it's
t
> 128M? My firewall has more than that. My personal firewall... A
> P120or 133...I honestly don't remember. But anyway who's bright idea
> was that? You can get ahold of 256M for like $100 or less, usually less.
This is a colocated machine, put together by the colo. 128M is actually
plent
--On Sunday, May 23, 2004 23:30 -0400 Dale E Martin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a colocated machine, put together by the colo. 128M is actually
plenty for handling mail for 10s of people and serving webpages - if you
don't use spamassassin... It's doing fine ever with SA now that it's
t
> 128M? My firewall has more than that. My personal firewall... A
> P120or 133...I honestly don't remember. But anyway who's bright idea
> was that? You can get ahold of 256M for like $100 or less, usually less.
This is a colocated machine, put together by the colo. 128M is actually
plent
128M? My firewall has more than that. My personal firewall... A
P120or 133...I honestly don't remember. But anyway who's bright idea
was that? You can get ahold of 256M for like $100 or less, usually less.
128M hasn't been enough for a server, especially a heavily used one, for a
ln
> You really need a serious amount of mail for SA to bog down. As you all
> realized, mail volume is relative.
Even with just a few thousand mails a day, I have had a Duron 1GHz machine
(with 128M) come to a crawl due to spamassassin in the past. If there was
any kind of outage then when the mai
128M? My firewall has more than that. My personal firewall... A
P120or 133...I honestly don't remember. But anyway who's bright idea
was that? You can get ahold of 256M for like $100 or less, usually less.
128M hasn't been enough for a server, especially a heavily used one, for a
ln
> You really need a serious amount of mail for SA to bog down. As you all
> realized, mail volume is relative.
Even with just a few thousand mails a day, I have had a Duron 1GHz machine
(with 128M) come to a crawl due to spamassassin in the past. If there was
any kind of outage then when the mai
Michelle Konzack said:
> I do not know about 'surbl' but which files are the same ?
>
> Why not renaming the binaries ?
>
> On the other side I had a very little program which check
> IP's with rbl but unfortunately I have lost it...
>
> I had a procmail recipe like for SA and it has marked the
>
Michelle Konzack said:
> I do not know about 'surbl' but which files are the same ?
>
> Why not renaming the binaries ?
>
> On the other side I had a very little program which check
> IP's with rbl but unfortunately I have lost it...
>
> I had a procmail recipe like for SA and it has marked the
>
Am 2004-05-18 14:06:52, schrieb Lucas Albers:
>I just wish the 2.53 Debian SA had surbl as part of it.
>I have to install sa, and then do a make install on surbl.
>I tried to make the surbl package as a deb file but it conflicted with sa
>files.
>Obviously, because they provide the same files.
I
Am 2004-05-18 14:06:52, schrieb Lucas Albers:
>I just wish the 2.53 Debian SA had surbl as part of it.
>I have to install sa, and then do a make install on surbl.
>I tried to make the surbl package as a deb file but it conflicted with sa
>files.
>Obviously, because they provide the same files.
I
Sorry, now that i re-read it I see that I made it sound like SA was a hog. It
has never
impacted my server that I've seen. But, I only have it on a few accounts (it is
opt-in for my
clients, as is sanitizer), so I really don't know the impact. I just have noted
that, even
with spamd, it jumps to
Sorry, now that i re-read it I see that I made it sound like SA was a hog. It has never
impacted my server that I've seen. But, I only have it on a few accounts (it is opt-in
for my
clients, as is sanitizer), so I really don't know the impact. I just have noted that,
even
with spamd, it jumps to
--On Tuesday, May 18, 2004 14:06 -0600 Lucas Albers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just wish the 2.53 Debian SA had surbl as part of it.
I have to install sa, and then do a make install on surbl.
I tried to make the surbl package as a deb file but it conflicted with sa
files.
Obviously, because th
Rod Rodolico said:
> 2) spamassassin uses some processing power, so I am only running it
> against unknown senders
What is your mail volume?
You really need a serious amount of mail for SA to bog down.
As you all realized, mail volume is relative.
>From what I've seen you can handle 100-200K mess
> Install spamassassin 2.63 which had filtered last
> night around 480 SPAMS from 78 Mailinglists...
>
and then enable surbl, and set it to score at 6.0.
Then submit 1-10 spam's that slip by per day to spamcop.
I just enabled surbl on my external debian mail relay, and it is grabbing
around 30% mor
--On Tuesday, May 18, 2004 14:06 -0600 Lucas Albers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just wish the 2.53 Debian SA had surbl as part of it.
I have to install sa, and then do a make install on surbl.
I tried to make the surbl package as a deb file but it conflicted with sa
files.
Obviously, because th
Rod Rodolico said:
> 2) spamassassin uses some processing power, so I am only running it
> against unknown senders
What is your mail volume?
You really need a serious amount of mail for SA to bog down.
As you all realized, mail volume is relative.
>From what I've seen you can handle 100-200K mess
> Install spamassassin 2.63 which had filtered last
> night around 480 SPAMS from 78 Mailinglists...
>
and then enable surbl, and set it to score at 6.0.
Then submit 1-10 spam's that slip by per day to spamcop.
I just enabled surbl on my external debian mail relay, and it is grabbing
around 30% mor
Pascal,
Had the same problem with SpamAssassin. Came up with a work-around if you want
to put some
time in it. I use IMAP and have separate folders for each correspondent. I then
have procmail
run through a series of filters for these correspondents and shove matching
e-mail into the
folder. Th
Pascal,
Had the same problem with SpamAssassin. Came up with a work-around if you want to put
some
time in it. I use IMAP and have separate folders for each correspondent. I then have
procmail
run through a series of filters for these correspondents and shove matching e-mail
into the
folder. Th
* Daniel Schildt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040510 19:40]:
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:15:18 +0200
> Kilian Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I guess the large fear was always crossposts from inside
> > lists.debian.org being rejected with member-only-permitted. IMHO can be
> > circumvented while allow
On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:15:18 +0200
Kilian Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess the large fear was always crossposts from inside
> lists.debian.org being rejected with member-only-permitted. IMHO can be
> circumvented while allowing all of lists.d.o subscribers to post to all
> lists. That w
* Daniel Schildt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040510 19:40]:
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:15:18 +0200
> Kilian Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I guess the large fear was always crossposts from inside
> > lists.debian.org being rejected with member-only-permitted. IMHO can be
> > circumvented while allow
On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:15:18 +0200
Kilian Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess the large fear was always crossposts from inside
> lists.debian.org being rejected with member-only-permitted. IMHO can be
> circumvented while allowing all of lists.d.o subscribers to post to all
> lists. That w
On Mon, 10 May 2004 09:59:20 -0500, Gregory wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I believe Yahoo, Microsoft and others have talked about creating a
> mail server registration system but no one is making any visible
> progress. Whoever (maybe this group) comes up with the 'new and
> improved' e
On Mon, 10 May 2004 16:20:11 +0200, Andreas wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Richard Zuidhof ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040510 16:10]:
> > Pascal Hakim wrote:
> > >
> > >We are running spam assassin plus a whole bunch of custom procmail,
> > >as well as something called cross-assassin which g
will run gateway and individual PC filters.
Greg Wood
-Original Message-
From: Richard Zuidhof [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 3:10 PM
To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You can start saving now
Somebody please make this list member-only. I a
Pascal Hakim wrote:
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 10:09:48PM +0200, Richard Zuidhof wrote:
Somebody please make this list member-only. I am sick of the spam I receive
through this list, it is my main source of spam.
My take on this is that spam is both a client and a server issue. If
you're not running
* Richard Zuidhof ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040510 16:10]:
> Pascal Hakim wrote:
> >
> >We are running spam assassin plus a whole bunch of custom procmail, as
> >well as something called cross-assassin which gets cross posts against
> >lists.
> >
> >For those wondering about the numbers, as far as this
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 10:09:48PM +0200, Richard Zuidhof wrote:
> Somebody please make this list member-only. I am sick of the spam I receive
> through this list, it is my main source of spam.
>
Making lists member-only makes it harder for people to participate. Most
people who get a "Your messag
Pascal Hakim wrote:
>
We are running spam assassin plus a whole bunch of custom procmail, as
well as something called cross-assassin which gets cross posts against
lists.
For those wondering about the numbers, as far as this month is
concerned, 376 messages (3.3 Mb) did not make it onto the list.
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:46:09AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> You have to weigh up the pros and cons of this.
Agreed.
> Presumably lists.debian.org already uses some kind of spam filtering, such
> as using ordb.org or spamcop.net or something to filter spamming IPs
> outright?
>
> Then on your en
On Mon, 10 May 2004 09:59:20 -0500, Gregory wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I believe Yahoo, Microsoft and others have talked about creating a
> mail server registration system but no one is making any visible
> progress. Whoever (maybe this group) comes up with the 'new and
> improved' e
On Mon, 10 May 2004 16:20:11 +0200, Andreas wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Richard Zuidhof ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040510 16:10]:
> > Pascal Hakim wrote:
> > >
> > >We are running spam assassin plus a whole bunch of custom procmail,
> > >as well as something called cross-assassin which g
will run gateway and individual PC filters.
Greg Wood
-Original Message-
From: Richard Zuidhof [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 3:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You can start saving now
Somebody please make this list member-only. I am sick o
Pascal Hakim wrote:
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 10:09:48PM +0200, Richard Zuidhof wrote:
Somebody please make this list member-only. I am sick of the spam I receive
through this list, it is my main source of spam.
My take on this is that spam is both a client and a server issue. If
you're not runni
* Richard Zuidhof ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040510 16:10]:
> Pascal Hakim wrote:
> >
> >We are running spam assassin plus a whole bunch of custom procmail, as
> >well as something called cross-assassin which gets cross posts against
> >lists.
> >
> >For those wondering about the numbers, as far as this
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 10:09:48PM +0200, Richard Zuidhof wrote:
> Somebody please make this list member-only. I am sick of the spam I receive
> through this list, it is my main source of spam.
>
Making lists member-only makes it harder for people to participate. Most
people who get a "Your messag
Pascal Hakim wrote:
>
We are running spam assassin plus a whole bunch of custom procmail, as
well as something called cross-assassin which gets cross posts against
lists.
For those wondering about the numbers, as far as this month is
concerned, 376 messages (3.3 Mb) did not make it onto the list.
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:46:09AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> You have to weigh up the pros and cons of this.
Agreed.
> Presumably lists.debian.org already uses some kind of spam filtering, such
> as using ordb.org or spamcop.net or something to filter spamming IPs
> outright?
>
> Then on your en
Hi Chris,
Am Mo, den 10.05.2004 schrieb Chris Wagner um 11:50:
> I have to concur that we finally have to make this a restricted access list.
> It's not that big a deal for a newb to have to sign up to ask their
> question. However, remember that will do no good for the virus spam that can
> come
I have to concur that we finally have to make this a restricted access list.
It's not that big a deal for a newb to have to sign up to ask their
question. However, remember that will do no good for the virus spam that can
come from subscribed people's accounts.
--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTE
Hi Chris,
Am Mo, den 10.05.2004 schrieb Chris Wagner um 11:50:
> I have to concur that we finally have to make this a restricted access list.
> It's not that big a deal for a newb to have to sign up to ask their
> question. However, remember that will do no good for the virus spam that can
> come
Am 2004-05-09 22:09:48, schrieb Richard Zuidhof:
>Somebody please make this list member-only. I am sick of the spam I receive
>through this list, it is my main source of spam.
>
>Richard
Install spamassassin 2.63 which had filtered last
night around 480 SPAMS from 78 Mailinglists...
It will find
I have to concur that we finally have to make this a restricted access list.
It's not that big a deal for a newb to have to sign up to ask their
question. However, remember that will do no good for the virus spam that can
come from subscribed people's accounts.
--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTE
Am 2004-05-09 22:09:48, schrieb Richard Zuidhof:
>Somebody please make this list member-only. I am sick of the spam I receive
>through this list, it is my main source of spam.
>
>Richard
Install spamassassin 2.63 which had filtered last
night around 480 SPAMS from 78 Mailinglists...
It will find
Look!! A dead horse!!!
*whack whack whack*
j
--
==
+ It's simply not | John Keimel+
+ RFC1149 compliant!| [EMAIL PROTECTED]+
+ | http://www.keimel.com +
===
Somebody please make this list member-only. I am sick of the spam I receive
through this list, it is my main source of spam.
Richard
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.677 / Virus Database: 439 - Release Date: 4-5-20
chard Zuidhof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, 10 May, 2004 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: You can start saving now
> Somebody please make this list member-only. I am sick of the spam I
receive
> through this list, it is m
Look!! A dead horse!!!
*whack whack whack*
j
--
==
+ It's simply not | John Keimel+
+ RFC1149 compliant!| [EMAIL PROTECTED]+
+ | http://www.keimel.com +
===
chard Zuidhof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, 10 May, 2004 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: You can start saving now
> Somebody please make this list member-only. I am sick of the spam I
receive
> through this list, it is my main source of spam.
>
> Ri
Somebody please make this list member-only. I am sick of the spam I receive
through this list, it is my main source of spam.
Richard
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.677 / Virus Database: 439 - Release Date: 4-5-20
64 matches
Mail list logo
