On Sunday 09 June 2002 11:09 pm, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Anyone have any thoughts for a cool release name for 2.30?
I just (finally) saw the Lord of the Rings movie, so Tolkien-esque names
spring to mind. "Mordor"? ("Mordor, where the spammers lie") "Sauron"?
("The unblinking eye of Sauron,
Ok, if anyone is about to submit a patch, it's time to do it. I'd like to get
2.30 out by wednesday, which is pretty aggressive, but things are pretty stable
right now. Please don't anyone check anything in (those of you with commit
privs). Instead, please attach any changes to a bugzilla ticke
> Only PORN_8 is negatively scoring. (Severely negative)
PORN_* means PORN_8 of course, just a problem of synch on the shift
key :))
Olivier
___
Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
August 25-28 in Las Veg
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 09:11:33AM +0700, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> > | For certain items, e.g. porn, I would like to send
> > | these to /dev/null.
> >
> > :0
> > * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
> > * ^X-Spam-Status:.*PORN
> > /dev/null
>
> Be carefull!, rule PORN_* is a negative rule (it triggers on email
On Sunday 09 June 2002 23:51, Brian May wrote:
> You know.. I make my living writing code in VB.. and I must say it pisses
> me off when people say that VB coders are "dumb". For personal use, I
> write code in perl, PHP, C and yes VB.
>
> What are your reasons for calling VB coders dumb? Please
Sean Rima wrote:
SR> But if I disable spamc in Exim (I used your example config) and leave
SR> dcc only I never get above a load average of 2.3 and dccd is flooding
SR> with remote servers as well, pointing out that I use spamd with -L.
Actually, *not* using -L should *decrease* your load -- in
Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
DdH> On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 11:06:32PM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
DdH>
DdH> | Yeah the spam[c/d] setup. My average is around 15 seconds, well it is an
DdH> | old p133 the slowest appears to be 93 seconds. I am a dialup user and
DdH> | when I go online off peak for the f
Sean Rima wrote:
SR> I thought it would not affect me too much but even with a -m 2 and a -s
SR> 61440 I reach a load average of over 15 which cripples my poor old mail
SR> box :)
Hmm, my understanding of "load" is "number of processes in the WAIT queue",
which with -m 2 can only be 3 for SA --
The -S flag to spamd should also help greatly in constrained hardware
situations.
C
Michael Stauber wrote:
MS> Hi Sean,
MS>
MS> > My ISP is also looking at SA but performance maybe a problem.
MS>
MS> Yes, it sure can be. I've set up SA for a couple of ISPs on their Cobalt RaQ
MS> servers. Those
> I must not be looking in the right place or something. The only thing I saw
> for setting up a gateway was someone had posted an example sendmail.mc file
> in usenet (Google search) but it didn't quite work for me. Mail passes
> through the gateway, but none of my test spam ever passes through
> | For certain items, e.g. porn, I would like to send
> | these to /dev/null.
>
> :0
> * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
> * ^X-Spam-Status:.*PORN
> /dev/null
Be carefull!, rule PORN_* is a negative rule (it triggers on email
that are not porn).
Olivier
___
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 09:40:14PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
| On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 05:01:24PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
| > On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 05:39:28PM -0400, Don Bivens wrote:
| >
| > | For certain items, e.g. porn, I would like to send
| > | these to /dev/null.
| >
| >
I'm picturing some developer with a line like:
print "Approved for $5000...For $user only...";
sending out a test message sees that it reads:
Approved for ...For fred only...
And saying to himself "Doh! $5000 is a bad variable -- I should use '' there!"
-->
print 'Approved for $5000...For $
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 09:40:14PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 05:01:24PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 05:39:28PM -0400, Don Bivens wrote:
> >
> > | For certain items, e.g. porn, I would like to send
> > | these to /dev/null.
> >
> >
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 05:01:24PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 05:39:28PM -0400, Don Bivens wrote:
>
> | For certain items, e.g. porn, I would like to send
> | these to /dev/null.
>
> :0
> * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
> * ^X-Spam-Status:.*PORN
> /dev/null
>
> (IOW, if
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 12:33:13AM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 12:19:20AM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It's going to be a rather long wait, I think. Perl 6 probably
> >> > won't be production ready for a few years.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Darn, off to the forsale N
Thanks very much.
___
Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
August 25-28 in Las Vegas -
http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm?source=osdntextlink
___
Spamas
On Sunday 09 June 2002 03:53 pm, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> The real problem you have is not so much spamd's performance, but the
> fact that it sits idle 99% of the time, then gets slammed with 1K
> messages in a matter of seconds. Even with my Duron 750 and not much
> else happening, the b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Jeremy Zawodny yowled:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 12:19:20AM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
>> >
>> > It's going to be a rather long wait, I think. Perl 6 probably
>> > won't be production ready for a few years.
>> >
>>
>> Darn, off t
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 12:07:14AM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
| On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Derrick Hudson muttered drunkenly:
|
| >| Yeah the spam[c/d] setup. My average is around 15 seconds, well it is
| >| an old p133 the slowest appears to be 93 seconds. I am a dialup user
| >| and when I go online off
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 12:19:20AM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
> >
> > It's going to be a rather long wait, I think. Perl 6 probably won't
> > be production ready for a few years.
> >
>
> Darn, off to the forsale NG's to price a new P4 methinks :)
If you could use an old Celeron 300A board and CP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Jeremy Zawodny uttered the following:
>> >> My ISP is also looking at SA but performance maybe a problem.
>> >
>> > When Perl 6 comes out, it will have a Just In Time (JIT) compiler,
>> > which will automatically compile Perl dow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Derrick Hudson muttered drunkenly:
>| Yeah the spam[c/d] setup. My average is around 15 seconds, well it is
>| an old p133 the slowest appears to be 93 seconds. I am a dialup user
>| and when I go online off peak for the first tim
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 11:45:33PM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Matthew Cline stipulated:
>
> >> My ISP is also looking at SA but performance maybe a problem.
> >
> > When Perl 6 comes out, it will have a Just In Time (JIT) co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Matthew Cline stipulated:
>> My ISP is also looking at SA but performance maybe a problem.
>
> When Perl 6 comes out, it will have a Just In Time (JIT) compiler,
> which will automatically compile Perl down to machine instruction
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 11:06:32PM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
| Yeah the spam[c/d] setup. My average is around 15 seconds, well it is an
| old p133 the slowest appears to be 93 seconds. I am a dialup user and
| when I go online off peak for the first time, fetchmail can throw over a
| 1000 emails a
On Sunday 09 June 2002 03:06 pm, Sean Rima wrote:
> My ISP is also looking at SA but performance maybe a problem.
When Perl 6 comes out, it will have a Just In Time (JIT) compiler, which will
automatically compile Perl down to machine instructions for improved
performance. So it probably woul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Michael Stauber stipulated:
>> My ISP is also looking at SA but performance maybe a problem.
>
> Yes, it sure can be. I've set up SA for a couple of ISPs on their
> Cobalt RaQ servers. Those RaQs are pretty outdated boxes (AMD K
Hi Sean,
> My ISP is also looking at SA but performance maybe a problem.
Yes, it sure can be. I've set up SA for a couple of ISPs on their Cobalt RaQ
servers. Those RaQs are pretty outdated boxes (AMD K6/2 with 300-450 MHz) and
performance wise they don't have much to offer.
Even with SPAMd/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Jeroen Scheerder told this:
>>Is there any word on the C version of SA as I am getting him by
>>performance issuses.
>
> A C version of the daemon, you mean? Or are you running "spamassassin
> -P"?
>
> Using the C client (spamc)
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 05:39:28PM -0400, Don Bivens wrote:
| For certain items, e.g. porn, I would like to send
| these to /dev/null.
:0
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
* ^X-Spam-Status:.*PORN
/dev/null
(IOW, if it's spam and it triggered a porn rule, save it in the
bit-bucket)
-D
--
He who scorns i
On my particular setup I'm using sendmail with maildir
format and IMAP. I
send spamassassin filtered messages to a .SPAM folder
underneath INBOX for
review. The point of this is so that false-positives
won't be lost forever.
For certain items, e.g. porn, I would like to send
these to /dev/null
Sean Rima (9/6/02 22:05 +0100) [[SAtalk] C version]:
>Is there any word on the C version of SA as I am getting him by
>performance issuses.
A C version of the daemon, you mean? Or are you running "spamassassin -P"?
Using the C client (spamc) against a local spamd (perl), most messages
(about 75
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is there any word on the C version of SA as I am getting him by
performance issuses.
Sean
- --
Sean Rimahttp://www.tcob1.net
Linux User: 231986 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HERE
David T-G wrote:
> Well, I actually took the "lost cause" tack from your mail, though I
> agree that there are bulk-friendly ISPs and others which just don't
> care.
Nah, didn't really mean to imply a lost cause. I was rather,
optimistically projecting, or wishfully thinking regarding ISP's
con
Pete --
...and then Pete Hanson said...
%
% At 06/09/2002 11:39, David T-G wrote:
% >That's one good thing about spamcop, though; yes, it's possible to screw
...
% >I'd at least look at the spamcop mails.
% >
% >Or am I lost in my own little utopia again?
%
% Probably not. Stuff like spamcop i
At 06/09/2002 11:39, David T-G wrote:
>That's one good thing about spamcop, though; yes, it's possible to screw
>up (even I have accidentally submitted and sent reports for non-spam),
>but at least the addresses that get pulled out are for the right places.
>If I were an ISP I'd be inclined to ign
Derrick --
...and then Derrick 'dman' Hudson said...
%
% On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 12:51:49PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
%
% | I'm truly curious, since I would much rather have the spam go away than
% | just drop it away on my server...
%
% My tactics are documented here :
% http://marc.merlins
Pete, et al --
...and then Pete Hanson said...
%
% At 06/09/2002 10:30, Bryan Hoover wrote:
% >David T-G wrote:
% >Your point is taken, in that, there will always be a percentage of ISP
% >who are not conscientious enough to have an opinion one way or the
% >other, and so need a nudge in the rig
Bryan, et al --
...and then Bryan Hoover said...
%
% David T-G wrote:
%
...
% > listen to complaints, though perhaps if enough people complain they
% > might.
% > How, however, are those caring ISPs to chase the spammers around, as
...
% >
% > I'm truly curious, since I would much rather have t
At 06/09/2002 10:30, Bryan Hoover wrote:
>David T-G wrote:
>Your point is taken, in that, there will always be a percentage of ISP
>who are not conscientious enough to have an opinion one way or the
>other, and so need a nudge in the right direction.
>
>I suppose lately, I've had so much spam on t
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 12:51:49PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
| I'm truly curious, since I would much rather have the spam go away than
| just drop it away on my server...
My tactics are documented here :
http://marc.merlins.org/linux/exim/sa.html
Go ahead and try it out -- send to [EMAIL PROT
David T-G wrote:
> This is an interesting one, though... I'm sure there are some that
> won't
> listen to complaints, though perhaps if enough people complain they
> might.
> How, however, are those caring ISPs to chase the spammers around, as
> you
> put it, if nobody tells 'em about the proble
Bryan, et al --
...and then Bryan Hoover said...
%
% David T-G wrote:
%
% > actually report the spammer a la spamcop?
%
% I'm pretty sure neither report spammers. My guess is, ISPs that care do
OK; that lines up with my understanding. That's why I still have a
spamcop forwarding macro in my
I must not be looking in the right place or something. The only thing I saw
for setting up a gateway was someone had posted an example sendmail.mc file
in usenet (Google search) but it didn't quite work for me. Mail passes
through the gateway, but none of my test spam ever passes through a SA
c
Brian May wrote:
> Not to nitpick, but that is most languages.. if you don't know how to
> use
> the languange.. its kinda hard to make it do what you want it to
> do... :)
Sure. I made my comments with tounge firmly planted in cheek.
Indeed, the measure of intelligence is not a function of
You know.. I make my living writing code in VB.. and I must say it pisses me
off when people say that VB coders are "dumb". For personal use, I write
code in perl, PHP, C and yes VB.
What are your reasons for calling VB coders dumb? Please reply off list.
-Original Message-
From: [EM
David T-G wrote:
> actually report the spammer a la spamcop?
I'm pretty sure neither report spammers. My guess is, ISPs that care do
a good enough job chasing spamers around. The rest won't listen to
complaints. I imagine, reporting them is, seen in the light of day, is
probably pointless.
Br
Not to nitpick, but that is most languages.. if you don't know how to use
the languange.. its kinda hard to make it do what you want it to do... :)
Brian
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bryan
Hoover
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 10:59 P
Bryan --
...and then Bryan Hoover said...
%
% dempsey wrote:
%
% > I am not adding anything else for now. I recently have added qmail,
...
% For me, it's not enough just to rid my mailbox of spam. I feel like I
...
% would be best is to contribute to the spammer's demoralization,
I heartily a
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 11:02:35PM -0700, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
| On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 01:46:14AM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
| > On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 10:49:34PM -0700, Matthew Cline wrote:
| >
| > > Just got some spam with the subject "Approved for $5000...For
| > > $user only", and in
51 matches
Mail list logo
