On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 08:57:21PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> Yep. Running spamproxyd is really not an option for most of us.
> You lose (if I'm not mistaken)
> - SMTP AUTH
> - STARTTLS/SSL
> - The IP of the real sender
Sorry, I meant: the ability to block senders by IP from your MTA
(accept the
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 08:48:41PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> > What about using the bgsend/bgisready functionality in Net::DNS? That
> > should allow multiple queries in the background in parallel.
>
> Sounds like a great idea, I wasn't aware of the functionality.
> Craig, is it something:
> -
1. Since I am now using spamassassin and it is now putting all the messages
tagged as spam in a folder called caught spam. How can I then use the
spamassassin -r to report all messages in that mbox file? I assume that if I
use spamassassin -r < caughtspam it will report it all as one big message?
>It's just 3 questions, all multiple choice :) -- if you have 3 seconds while
>signing up for the announcements list, go ahead and click through the survey
>too.
I'd have been glad to answer the survey, if it did not mean
registering to Source Forge, which I don't see any need in doing so
(plus t
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 11:52:23AM +1200, Jason Haar wrote:
> I'd suggest the opposite is better: have the real MTA relay it to
> spamproxyd. If you do it your way, you've just lost all anti-relaying
> protection...
Yep. Running spamproxyd is really not an option for most of us.
You lose (if I'm
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:53:51AM -0500, Nathan Neulinger wrote:
>
> > However, since we're going to do up to 10 queries, and each can be blocking,
> > wouldn't it be better to fork for each DNS lookup (even optionally) and kill
> > the children if the DNS query hasn't returned in x seconds?
> >
Actually, it LOOKS like SpamAssassin is working. I'm getting incoming spam
properly identified. So, maybe it runs without gdbm even being there. One
curious thing, though: I have not yet created a .forward file. Can it run
without that? It seems to be running...
Thanks!
Harold
dman wrote:
> O
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 12 May 2002 21:20 pm, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> That would be idea. Being able to just add a few lines of
> code and link in libspamc or libspamassasin or whatever
> would rock.
Indeed it would. Now, imagine for a second that we have two
ve
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 07:27:56PM -0700, Harold Hallikainen wrote:
| I'm VERY new to SpamAssassin (experience now approaching 10 minutes)
| and seem to have trouble with the install. This is running in my own
| area on my ISP's Debian linux machine. The problem is when I run
| "make", I get
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 05:28:27PM +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> > However, since we're going to do up to 10 queries, and each can be
> > blocking, wouldn't it be better to fork for each DNS lookup (even
> > optionally) and kill the children if the DNS query hasn't returned in
> > x seconds?
>
> "DP" == Daniel Pittman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Rule optimization is proceeding. You might find a better/faster regex
>> engine, but you'll probably have to re-optimize the rules for that
>> engine vs the perl engine. I think we're going to be focussing on
In one of my previous lives
I'm VERY new to SpamAssassin (experience now approaching 10 minutes)
and seem to have trouble with the install. This is running in my own
area on my ISP's Debian linux machine. The problem is when I run
"make", I get the following:
cc -Dbool=char -DHAS_BOOL -D_REENTRANT -DDEBIAN -I/usr/local
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 08:57:32PM -0500, dman wrote:
>
> Why not just embedd spamc in the MTA itself? Then there's no extra
> process running and the MTA just does a little more socket work
> passing the message through spamd. In fact, Marc's sa-exim patch
> almost does this. The only thing i
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 11:52:23AM +1200, Jason Haar wrote:
| On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 10:33:41AM +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
| > Fix that first, if you want to fix anything. Grab, or write, a version
| > of spamproxyd that you trust[1] with your email, then have inbound SMTP
| > talk directly to
I think the patch which does wrapping of long header lines for some of the
headers just got added in recently. Short lines probably still don't wrap, so
you'll only see it when the message has triggered lots of rules.
Marc MERLIN wrote:
MM> It's interesting that this only happened one to me wit
On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 10:33:41AM +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> Fix that first, if you want to fix anything. Grab, or write, a version
> of spamproxyd that you trust[1] with your email, then have inbound SMTP
> talk directly to that and have it relay on to the real MTA.
I'd suggest the opposite
On Sat, 11 May 2002, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 May 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> using the Bcc field instead of To or CC then you'll want to manually
> >> adjust the score the GA assigns. But you might also want to
> >> re-eval
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 12:24:40PM -0500, Richie Laager wrote:
> On Sunday 12 May 2002 11:57 am, Michael Stenner wrote:
> > The only times I KNOW it died were at sunday morning log
> > rotation. Granted, some other things happen then, but I
> > think the log rotation is the best bet.
>
> I woul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 12 May 2002 12:40 pm, Dave Strickler wrote:
> I have moved the SA reports into the header of the email and
> into terse mode. While this works great, I am getting an
> extra line in the header after the report that looks like:
> "X-Spam-Chec
I'm currently running SA and am *very* happy with it. In case
anyone is interested, I'm running the daemons and they are performing
well.
Question
==
I have moved the SA reports into the header of the email and
into terse mode. While this works great, I am getting an extra line in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 12 May 2002 11:57 am, Michael Stenner wrote:
> The only times I KNOW it died were at sunday morning log
> rotation. Granted, some other things happen then, but I
> think the log rotation is the best bet.
I would recommend that you start e
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 12:57:40PM -0400, Michael Stenner wrote:
> RHL 7.2, mostly stock. I _AM_ using syslog-ng (1.4.14),
> though... that may very well be relevant.
As an FYI, I'm running a similar RH 7.2 setup with the standard RH
released sysklogd package (sysklogd-1.4.1-4). I've never seen
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 11:39:39AM -0500, Richie Laager wrote:
> On Sunday 12 May 2002 11:21 am, Michael Stenner wrote:
> > Are other people seeing this, or do you suspect this is
> > specific to our site somehow?
> >
> > I can provide any further info you like.
Thanks for the quick reply, Richie
Yes, Ed Henderson was quickest on the draw in pointing out my flub up.
Thanks!
Ken
Craig R Hughes wrote:
> I think the problem is that you need a * before the @s
>
> C
>
> Ken Causey wrote:
>
> KC> At a user's request I recently whitelisted
> KC>
> KC> whitelist_from @mailgeek.compgeeks.com
spamd appears to be dying when the log file is rotated. I'm running
on a redhat 7.2 box and logging to syslog with facility mail (the
default). On two occasions I have seen spamd running (by successful
connection reports in the log) less than 10 minutes before rotation
and seen it dead (again, l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 12 May 2002 07:40 am, Arpi wrote:
> argh
> you should NOT run indent on that - it looks awful now :(
Do you have a preference for the indentation? Personally, I
use k&r style. However, I just used indent's default of gnu
style.
I just wa
> However, since we're going to do up to 10 queries, and each can be blocking,
> wouldn't it be better to fork for each DNS lookup (even optionally) and kill
> the children if the DNS query hasn't returned in x seconds?
> That way, since all the DNS queries are run in parallel, at worst, you spen
Hi,
> > i'vs just uploaded the current snapshot of my version to:
> > ftp://ftp.mplayerhq.hu/spamassassin-c_0.2.tar.gz
> >
> > it is not usable in production yet - it is full of timers
> > and debug stuff, for testing and benchmarking purposes.
>
> I've uploaded a version based on the above sour
On Sat, 11 May 2002, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 02:26:55PM -0500, dman wrote:
[...]
> I am using spamd, but I'm pretty sure what's killing me are the rbl
> checks.
[...]
> However, since we're going to do up to 10 queries, and each can be
> blocking, wouldn't it be better to
29 matches
Mail list logo
