> Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by server by uid 1003 with
qmail-scanner-1.20
> (sophie: 3.04/2.14/3.73. spamassassin: 2.60. Clear:RC:1(81.128.42.81):.
> Processed in 0.621285 secs); 20 Jan 2004 20:08:26 -
> If I read that correctly, your message scored a 2.60. My running processes
> sho
> I have had SpamAssassin running with my Qmail for about a week now, and
have
> yet to see any mail come through marked with "*SPAM*" -- even
after
> I set the level to "3"! It appears to be running, but doesn't seem to be
> doing anything, and I'm still getting dozens of spams in my perso
Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool = LART = big stick to hit stupid users with
UCE/UBE unsolicited Bulk/commercial email.
Trying typing LART or UCE into google, not really to do with SA at all.
Pete
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
jean-chri
What specs are your box?
200 spamcs is far far far too many, try 10 or 20.
Pete
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mail
Monitor
Sent: 13 January 2004 15:03
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] Configuring SA to be more
Hi
>From being on here a while, this isn't the worst list in the world
not like some of the
egotistical tossers on the qmail list who spend time flaming *every* newbie
(not to name any names). ;)
Pete
Also well impressed by SA and the support surrounding it.
-Original Mess
Hi List,
> I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression, if you are using Bayes with
> auto_learn (auto_learn 1), then you most likely -do- want
> bayes_learn_to_journal set to 1. (enabled).
Sorry David, got tired last night (been banging my head against this for a
few days), I meant i set it to
Hi dan, list,
> I think it's simply a function of load. The first system gets the bulk of
the mail thoughput. You can see that the > erratic loads
> tail off over the weekend. It's wierd. I have tried disabling RBL, bayes
and even removing all my third party
> rules. No dice.
If it is still l
> > haven't been able to use bayes as the whole box just gets bogged down
and
> > some spamd processes just sit there with no spamc using them. Turn off
> > bayes and all works fine :\ (Any ideas anyone?)
> Hm I'm not getting that here. Did you make sure to delete your old beys db
and
> try
Cheryl, Dan and rest of list.
So there are a few of us that have spamd's sitting there after spamc has
timeout on something nasty, taking up loads of processing power Not
just me which makes me feel a bit better.
Do you two use bayes and do you have single processor or SMP systems?
I have u
Are there spamc processes accessing them??
- what is in that userpref file?
How have you started spamd?
Did it do it under 2.5x?
If this is like what I am seeing then a killall -HUP spamd will at least get
the server going again. :\
Pete
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mai
Hi there
Try disabling bayes (bayes 0 in local.cf) - since upgrading to 2.60 we
haven't been able to use bayes as the whole box just gets bogged down and
some spamd processes just sit there with no spamc using them. Turn off
bayes and all works fine :\ (Any ideas anyone?)
Also make sure you
Hi All
I have spent the past hour looking through the archives and I can see lots
of people having similar problems to me but not actually identical, so here
I try instead.
I have:
Dual 1.4 P3 2 gig ram 40 gig RAID
running:
qmail 1.03, qmail-scanner 1.20, spamcontrol, spamd (2.60) and sophie (3.
12 matches
Mail list logo
