On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Mark Powell wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Mark Powell wrote:
>
> > Your technique below is even more efficient (and logical) as we don't
> > even bother running spamc when we already know the results we'll get. I
> > think that is how 1.
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Mark Powell wrote:
> Your technique below is even more efficient (and logical) as we don't
> even bother running spamc when we already know the results we'll get. I
> think that is how 1.24 should handle the spam checking. Currently 1.23 is
> broken.
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Doug Monroe wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Mark Powell wrote:
> > Can someone please confirm that QS 1.23 works fine for them when spam
> > checking emails over 250K? That would help a great deal.
>
> FYI - 300Kb msg sent through one of my s
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Mark Powell wrote:
> Ok, tracked it down to this code in "sub spamassassin". I put some
> debugging in:
>
> &debug("SA: 0.0");
> while () {
> &debug("SA: 0.0.0");
> print (SOUT $_) || &debug("SA:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Mark Powell wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Mark Powell wrote:
> The only differences when the email is over 250k is that spamc returns
> instantly without contacting spamd so there's a possibility for some sort
> of timing error in QS. This seems very unlikel
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Mark Powell wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Jason Haar wrote:
> > Well that doesn't make sense. Qmail-Scanner doesn't give a monkeys about the
> > exit status of a message that is piped through SA - unlike AV, Q-S will
> > carry on delivering
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Jason Haar wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:12:55PM +0100, Mark Powell wrote:
> > Hi,
> > There is nothing else logged for that message. QS just leaves the files
> > lying around and the message is stuck forever :(
>
> Well that doesn't m
Your patch gives much finer control over all this though.
Cheers.
--
Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - The University of Salford
Information Services Division, Clifford Whitworth Building,
Salford University, Manchester, M5 4WT, UK.
Tel: +44 161 295 4837 Fax: +44 161 295 5888 ww
everything is fine.
Any ideas?
Cheers.
--
Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - The University of Salford
Information Services Division, Clifford Whitworth Building,
Salford University, Manchester, M5 4WT, UK.
Tel: +44 161 295 4837 Fax: +44 161 295 5888 www.pgp.co
#1 Open Source Desktop Event.
> GNOME Users and Developers European Conference, 28-30th June in Norway
> http://2004/guadec.org
> ___
> Qmail-scanner-general mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qmail-scan
ail-scanner-queue.pl.tmp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-scanner-queue.pl
Make sure these steps preserve the setuid bit on that file. They do for me
on FreeBSD 4.9-STABLE at least.
> to implement this I have recied over 1000 warnings in the last day
It won't stop the warnings you receive per se,
s to other machines as I have to edit each file
individually.
Cheers.
--
Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - The University of Salford
Information Services Division, Clifford Whitworth Building,
Salford University, Manchester, M5 4WT, UK.
Tel: +44 161 295 4837 Fax: +44 161 295 5888 www.p
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Mark Powell wrote:
> Thanks for the confirmation Jason. I didn't think it would be except for
> putting the extra SA headers in there, but checking is good ;)
After some investigation this seems to be qpsmtpd which is causing this.
Although it's not suppo
hing.
>
> BTW, rewriting the headers to a long line *doesn'* break RFCs - unless it's
> over 1024chars or the like...
>
> Something else is editing the headers
Thanks for the confirmation Jason. I didn't think it would be except for
putting the extra SA headers in
b, c, d, e, f
Is qmail-scanner doing this or am I barking up the wrong tree? If so, is
there any way to stop this?
Cheers.
--
Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - The University of Salford
Information Services Division, Clifford Whitworth Building,
Salford University, Manchester, M5 4WT, UK
;%a, %d %b %Y %H:%M:%S %z", localtime(time));
Why is the expected format commented out for the less useful format for a
log file?
Cheers.
--
Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - The University of Salford
Information Services Division, Clifford Whitworth Building,
Salford University, Manchester
a single large multi-gig file).
Next would be to get QS to understand the signal numbers returned by
programs that have exceeded their resource limits :@)
I feel this would be a useful step in preventing a DoS against QS.
Cheers.
--
Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - The University of
27;rm -f /tmp/clamd' in your clamd startup script. Otherwise it
won't restart if it crashes. My /service/clamd/run is:
-
#! /bin/sh
rm -f /tmp/clamd
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin:$PATH" clamd
-
Cheers.
--
Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator
QS? That is qscand or
whatever user you chose for QS.
Cheers.
--
Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - The University of Salford
Information Services Division, Clifford Whitworth Building,
Salford University, Manchester, M5 4WT, UK.
Tel: +44 161 295 4837 Fax: +44 161 295 5888 www.pgp.com
Hi,
Thought I'd give this URL a go, to see how QS coped:
http://www.gfi.com/emailsecuritytest
The CLSID tests failed here on 1.16, but I see 1.20 already catches those.
The fragmented virus tests were a surprise to me. I didn't know Outlook
could be that bad
Cheers.
--
M
20 matches
Mail list logo
