RE: [SAtalk] SPAMD stops tagging spam?

Dan, What happens if you manually run a mail through with spamc? We saw this sort of problem when spamd was taking too long and spamc timed out and returned the mail unprocessed. We resolved it by using the -t flag with spamc. -Original Message- From: Dan O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED

RE: [SAtalk] A cron job to delete old spam?

We are using archmbox: http://adc-archmbox.sourceforge.net > -Original Message- > From: Kris Deugau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 5:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] A cron job to delete old spam? > > > Liu Shuai wrote: > > I want to set

RE: [SAtalk] Moving SPAM to a separate Mailbox

I am unfamiliar with QMAIL, we use Postfix. Our Postfix content filter, the one that sends mail through spamd, examines the returned mail for 'x-spam: yes' and delivers it to a local mail account. If the flag is not found, it delivers it to the original recipient. Perhaps somethng like this is poss

RE: [SAtalk] SA 2.60 occasionally does no markup on spam

If it times out, does spamd decline to markup the header? I would think that it would mark up with the score that it has, without the timed-out tests. -Original Message- From: Jack Gostl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:17 PM To: Rich Puhek Cc: Martin

RE: [SAtalk] SA 2.60 occasionally does no markup on spam

I have been seeing this also, with 2.55 and 2.6. I had been working with the theory that it had to do with Postfix's content filter system. but since you are using procmail, perhaps that is not the case. My guess was that spamd was taking too long, and the message was getting forwarded anyway. The

[SAtalk] truncated mail

Has anyone else seen anything like this, where spamd appears to be truncating a message? I have a message that appears to go into spamd with size 67762 and gets returned to postfix with size 4755. I received the message with most of it missing. As far as I know from user reports, it is only happeni

RE: [SAtalk] why is this learned as ham?

AM To: Martin, Jeffrey Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SAtalk] why is this learned as ham? On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:35:44AM -0400, Martin, Jeffrey wrote: > But the example scored 0.4, so it still shouldn't be autolearned, > right? run with -D and read the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf d

RE: [SAtalk] why is this learned as ham?

Oops, I was on the wrong system. The real settings on this one are; 10_misc.cf:# learning system automatically, to train the Bayesian scanner. 10_misc.cf:bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam 0.1 10_misc.cf:bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 12.0 10_misc.cf:# Set this to 0 to turn off aut

[SAtalk] why is this learned as ham?

I just upgraded a test system to 2.6, and it is doing something strange. The header indicates that messages are being autolearned that shouldn't be. The auto_learn settings in /usr/share/spamassassin are: 10_misc.cf:auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -2 10_misc.cf:auto_learn_threshold_spam15 This i

RE: [SAtalk] Spam not

Even if it were whitelisted, there should still be the SA header tags indicating scores, etc. It doesn't *look* like it could be over the max message size. I've seen this myself quite a few times, where a message gets to a user without being processed by SA, although it does pass through the SA sys

RE: [SAtalk] System goes down

We had this problem, I think it was a memory leak in Perl. We upgraded to RH 8.0 and all was fine. I ran vmstat every 30 seconds, and graphed the numbers over time. I saw a steadily decreasing free memory number until it was all gone and the system became totally unresponsive just like describ