Re: Trouble configuring backup MX to reject unauth destination

2013-02-09 Thread Titanus Eramius
Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:54:02 +0100 skrev Jeroen Geilman : > On 02/08/2013 06:02 PM, Titanus Eramius wrote: > > > Feb 7 22:12:48 ntdata postfix/pickup[24843]: 048341743609: uid=5005 > > from= > > So you are...not re-injecting spamassassin traffic, but instead > re-submitting it via sendmail ? > Th

Re: Trouble configuring backup MX to reject unauth destination

2013-02-09 Thread James Griffin
--> Titanus Eramius [2013-02-09 12:23:38 +0100]: > All of those examples uses sendmail. But again, in relation to Postfix, > it might very well be possible to integrate SA in a better way. Maybe > the method suggested by the docs on content_filters? > http://www.postfix.org/FILTER_README.html#adv

Happy New Year

2013-02-09 Thread Feel Zhou
Hello, My friends This is Tom, I am sending my greetings from China. After one hour,There being the New Year of China. I set my postfix server with your help Thank you for Wietse and all the friends in the mailing list Happy New Year, everybody Tom 2012-2-9

Re: Trouble configuring backup MX to reject unauth destination

2013-02-09 Thread Noel Jones
On 2/9/2013 5:23 AM, Titanus Eramius wrote: > Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:54:02 +0100 skrev Jeroen Geilman : > >> On 02/08/2013 06:02 PM, Titanus Eramius wrote: >> >>> Feb 7 22:12:48 ntdata postfix/pickup[24843]: 048341743609: uid=5005 >>> from= >> >> So you are...not re-injecting spamassassin traffic, b

spamd to pipe 4 minute delay?

2013-02-09 Thread Stan Hoeppner
I just happened to notice I'm getting a 3-4 minute delay on occasion between SA scanning a msg and it being piped back into Postfix. Here's one such complete transaction. Note spamd processing takes 10 seconds, then we have a ~4 minute delay. For 95% of these SA deliveries the delay is less t

Re: spamd to pipe 4 minute delay?

2013-02-09 Thread Wietse Venema
Stan Hoeppner: > Feb 8 22:10:51 greer spamd[17319]: spamd: result: . 0 - BAYES_50 > scantime=10.6,size=22153,user=nobody,uid=65534,required_score=4.2,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=44140,mid=<5115cc02.2010...@hardwarefreak.com>,bayes=0.50,autolearn=disabled > Feb 8 22:14:26 greer post

Re: spamd to pipe 4 minute delay?

2013-02-09 Thread Robert Schetterer
Am 09.02.2013 18:14, schrieb Wietse Venema: > Stan Hoeppner: >> Feb 8 22:10:51 greer spamd[17319]: spamd: result: . 0 - BAYES_50 >> scantime=10.6,size=22153,user=nobody,uid=65534,required_score=4.2,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=44140,mid=<5115cc02.2010...@hardwarefreak.com>,bayes=0.50

Re: spamd to pipe 4 minute delay?

2013-02-09 Thread Stan Hoeppner
On 2/9/2013 11:14 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > Stan Hoeppner: >> Feb 8 22:10:51 greer spamd[17319]: spamd: result: . 0 - BAYES_50 >> scantime=10.6,size=22153,user=nobody,uid=65534,required_score=4.2,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=44140,mid=<5115cc02.2010...@hardwarefreak.com>,bayes=0.50,

Re: spamd to pipe 4 minute delay?

2013-02-09 Thread Miles Fidelman
Stan Hoeppner wrote: On 2/9/2013 11:14 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: Stan Hoeppner: Feb 8 22:10:51 greer spamd[17319]: spamd: result: . 0 - BAYES_50 scantime=10.6,size=22153,user=nobody,uid=65534,required_score=4.2,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=44140,mid=<5115cc02.2010...@hardwarefreak.com

Re: spamd to pipe 4 minute delay?

2013-02-09 Thread Wietse Venema
Stan Hoeppner: [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > On 2/9/2013 11:14 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > Stan Hoeppner: > >> Feb 8 22:10:51 greer spamd[17319]: spamd: result: . 0 - BAYES_50 > >> scantime=10.6,size=22153,user=nobody,uid=65534,required_score=4.2,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0

Re: spamd to pipe 4 minute delay?

2013-02-09 Thread Stan Hoeppner
On 2/9/2013 12:24 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote: >> Stan Hoeppner: >>> Feb 8 22:10:51 greer spamd[17319]: spamd: result: . 0 - BAYES_50 >>> scantime=10.6,size=22153,user=nobody,uid=65534,required_score=4.2,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=44140,mid=<5115cc02.2010...@hardwarefreak.com>,bayes=0.

Re: spamd to pipe 4 minute delay?

2013-02-09 Thread Robert Schetterer
Am 09.02.2013 21:35, schrieb Stan Hoeppner: > That doesn't seem to be the issue Robert. Note the 10.6s scan time. > The ~4 minute delay is -after- SA completes processing the message. > local.cf time_limit is 15s. SA scan times for yesterday's messages, > including the one above: Hi Stan, i see

Re: spamd to pipe 4 minute delay?

2013-02-09 Thread Stan Hoeppner
On 2/9/2013 1:49 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > Whatever command pipe(8) executes, it will have to > > 1) terminate > AND > 2) close stdout and stderr. > > If that command does not do both then pipe(8) will wait (up to a > configurable time limit after which it kills the process). spamassassin unix

Re: spamd to pipe 4 minute delay?

2013-02-09 Thread Wietse Venema
Stan Hoeppner: > On 2/9/2013 1:49 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > Whatever command pipe(8) executes, it will have to > > > > 1) terminate > > AND > > 2) close stdout and stderr. > > > > If that command does not do both then pipe(8) will wait (up to a > > configurable time limit after which it kil