(with 2.60)
Occasionally (about 1 in 5000) SA recognizes a spam (according to all
the other headers), but fails to add the *SPAM* header.
As this is so rare, I'm willing to write it off as "just weird", but
I'm wondering if anyone else has had this problem.
I can reproduce this by sendin
Microsoft Windows XP's "Remote Assistance" invitations trigger a false
positive for me.
Relevant headers:
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: YOU HAVE RECEIVED A REMOTE ASSISTANCE INVITATION FROM: Nikki
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="=_NextPart_000_000
> Have you tried starting spamd with the "-m" flag to limit
> the number of copies?
Yes, I have -m 10. It doesn't seem to have any effect.
> How much RAM are you using?
Unfortunately, I wasn't keeping track. Now I am: http://3e.org/perf/
I'm hoping this'll happen again soon so I can actually se
(Running 2.60)
I'm having a problem where sometimes I end up with dozens of spamds
taking 100% CPU, driving my load average up to 50 or so.
Anyone else see this?
--
Daniel Drucker / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This SF.net email sponsored by: Enter
>> I wasn't even aware that this notfirsthop argument existed; as far as I
can
>> tell in a few minutes of testing, the argument has no effect.
>> I've had to disable all dynamic-IP RBLs because of this problem...
> Out of curiosity, what method do you use to feed your email into
> SpamAssassin? D
> Yes, the situation I'm talking about is lots of spamd processes running at
> once using lots of memory. (Not to mention the local delivery processes
> running at the same time as well)
>
> Spamd using 800MB of ram is a bug, and one which I've never encountered
> yet in months of using spamd, so i
> At 03:10 PM 10/16/2003, Daniel M. Drucker wrote:
> >I wasn't even aware that this notfirsthop argument existed; as far as
> >I can tell in a few minutes of testing, the argument has no effect.
> >I've had to disable all dynamic-IP RBLs because of this proble
On 2003-10-16, Brian Sneddon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you check the rule itself in 20_dnsbl_tests.cf you'll notice the
> -notfirsthop part of the argument to check_rbl_txt(). This tells
> SpamAssassin to check all hops except the first one for this match. As a
I wasn't even aware that thi
