The issue appears to also have been resolved for FreeBSD 4.7, which is the
OS where I have been experiencing this problem.
Thanks!!!
--Tomki
At 12:15 12/29/2002 +0100, Stefan Seiz wrote:
On 28.12.2002 1:00 Uhr, Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Even so I run it with the -m 2 flag, spa
Those checks, in the syntax listed, would be added to an access list for
Sendmail (/etc/mail/access, which would then need to be hashed into a
database).
I can be of more service if you're running Postfix...can't help with qmail
or Exim, I'm afraid.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Somik Raha wrote:
> Hi
Hi,
I went thru some of the earlier messages titled "Increase in low scoring
spam", but I wasn't able to figure out what I could do in version 2.43 to
block mails from High Speed Media (I'm still new to SA).
Hamish Marson had posted these checks :
/^From: .*@sendfree\.com/ REJECT Blo
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Mike Loiterman wrote:
>
>
> I normally use spamd, and its performance seems fine, but I recently
> had a reasons to fire-up spamassassin. It seems unusually slow to do
>just about anything..even to do a "spamassassin -V". Definition of slow:
>about 20 seconds to just to a '
Hi Guys,
I think this might have been discussed before, but I don't see the
messages any longer in my mailbox, so here goes. We have some scripted
installations of SA that have -P in the command line to be totally
backwardly compatible with sites that may have NEVER upgraded their SA
. Up throug
Maxime Ritter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/29/02 at 13:27:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:00:07PM -0500, Mike Leone wrote:
> > > > > if ((/^X-Spam-Status:.*Yes/))
> > > > > {
> > > > > echo "Your Email was Rejected by our SPAM filters. Sorry."
> > > > > EXITCODE=100
I posted about this a couple of weeks ago, and have not recieved feedback.
When using "spamassassin" it works fine, but uses resources like crazy.
when using spamc/spamd, every mail that comes through is passes every
test. resulting in a spam score of 0.0
Even when I pipe the sample-spam.tx
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I normally use spamd, and its performance seems fine, but I recently had a reasons to
fire-up spamassassin. It seems unusually slow to do just about anything..even to do a
"spamassassin -V". Definition of slow: about 20 seconds to just to a ' -V'
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Actually, this *appeared* to work in testing, but once in production, it
> became pretty clear that the exitcode wasn't doing what I had
> thought/hoped; keeping bounce messages out of the queue.
>
> The only other way I know of dealing with this
On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 10:33:20PM +0100, Bit Man wrote:
> But... when i compile the latest SA 2.43, and running the 'make test', I
> see this:
>
> t/razor.skipping test on this platform
> t/razor2skipping test on this platform
yeah.
> So the SA 2.43 not works within the
On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 10:33:20PM +0100, Bit Man wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On my system (Linux) there are installed the latest Razor (Agents 2.22),
> it works fine.
>
> But... when i compile the latest SA 2.43, and running the 'make test', I
> see this:
>
> ...
> t/lang_pl_tests.ok
> t/nonspam..
Hi!
On my system (Linux) there are installed the latest Razor (Agents 2.22),
it works fine.
But... when i compile the latest SA 2.43, and running the 'make test', I
see this:
...
t/lang_pl_tests.ok
t/nonspam...ok
t/razor.skipping test on this platform
t/razor2
Actually, this *appeared* to work in testing, but once in production, it
became pretty clear that the exitcode wasn't doing what I had
thought/hoped; keeping bounce messages out of the queue.
The only other way I know of dealing with this at the MDA level is to
route rejected email to /dev/null,
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:00:07PM -0500, Mike Leone wrote:
> > > > if ((/^X-Spam-Status:.*Yes/))
> > > > {
> > > > echo "Your Email was Rejected by our SPAM filters. Sorry."
> > > > EXITCODE=100
> > > > exit
> > > > }
> > Maybe I need to rephrase that: It informs th
Hi,
Marcus Schopen wrote:
>
> I'm using spamassassin (vers. 2.20; debian woody package) in combination
> with mimedefang (vers. 2.28 from source) to check mails for spam by
> using sendmails Milter functionality. Everything seens to work fine.
> Over 90 percent of all spams are detected. GREAT!
>
Hi,
I'm using spamassassin (vers. 2.20; debian woody package) in combination
with mimedefang (vers. 2.28 from source) to check mails for spam by
using sendmails Milter functionality. Everything seens to work fine.
Over 90 percent of all spams are detected. GREAT!
Now the problem: I put the follow
On 28.12.2002 1:00 Uhr, Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Even so I run it with the -m 2 flag, spamd leaves a zombie child for EVERY
>> scanned message behind resulting in a totally overloaded system after a
>> while (same when running without the -m flag).
>
> Stefan --
>
> could you t
17 matches
Mail list logo
