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 1.24 should handle the spam checking. Cu
> Can someone please confirm that QS 1.23 works fine for them
> when spam
> checking emails over 250K? That would help a great deal.
> Cheers.
>
> --
> Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - The University of Salford
> Information Services Division, Clifford Whitworth Building,
> Salford
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.
Attached is a patch to
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 systems (QS 1.23, SA 2.63,
> verbo
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: print error");
> }
> &debug("SA: 0.1");
I put in more debugging
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 unlikely though.
> The o
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 a message that fails in any way, sha
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 make sense. Qmail-Scanner doesn't giv
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 make sense. Qmail-Scanner doesn't give a monkeys about the
exit status of a message that
Hi,
QS 1.23 is not working whenever a spam checked message is over the 250K
threshold for not being checked by spamassassin. It works fine for
messages under that, but the logs just stop at the spamc command when the
message is over 250K e.g.
Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:04:54 BST:58609: SA: run /usr/loc
10 matches
Mail list logo
