On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Rich Puhek wrote:
> Spamd does see the message (I verified by looking for the message ID in
> the debug output), and the message appears to run through spamd fine,
> but it lands in my mailbox with no markup.
The other thing I've had cause this is if the buffer size in procm
> > You are forgetting that there are two pieces here, spamc and spamd. spamc
> > has a timeout. I believe it works like this.
> >
> > spamc sends the message to spamd. If spamd doesn't finish in time, spamc
> > goes ahead and releases the message unchanged. This doesn't shut down
> > spamd, whic
Jack Gostl wrote:
You are forgetting that there are two pieces here, spamc and spamd. spamc
has a timeout. I believe it works like this.
spamc sends the message to spamd. If spamd doesn't finish in time, spamc
goes ahead and releases the message unchanged. This doesn't shut down
spamd, which con
Jack Gostl wrote:
Are we talking about messages that have been processed through spamd but
not marked, or ones that somehow bypassed spamd altogether? I find an
occasional message gets missed by spamd when I *restart* it to pick up on
new rules :-)
- Charles
Spamd does see the message (I ver
> > Are we talking about messages that have been processed through spamd but
> > not marked, or ones that somehow bypassed spamd altogether? I find an
> > occasional message gets missed by spamd when I *restart* it to pick up on
> > new rules :-)
> >
> > - Charles
> >
>
> Spamd does see the
Charles Gregory wrote:
Hiyo!
Are we talking about messages that have been processed through spamd but
not marked, or ones that somehow bypassed spamd altogether? I find an
occasional message gets missed by spamd when I *restart* it to pick up on
new rules :-)
- Charles
Spamd does see the m
> True, rbls are what eats up the time, but my production (2.55) box
> doesn't appear to have this issue. Both boxes are running essentially
> the same configuration, especially WRT rbl lists. Plus, from the spamd
> logs on the 2.60 box, it looks like messages are being processed in just
> a f
Martin, Jeffrey wrote:
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.
No SA headers appear in the messages in question. Also, no body markup
is present.
--Rich
_
Jack Gostl wrote:
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 f
15, 2003 2:17 PM
> To: Rich Puhek
> Cc: Martin, Jeffrey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: 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
, Jeffrey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 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 procma
> > 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 forwa
nesday, October 15, 2003 11:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] SA 2.60 occasionally does no markup on spam
>
>
> I've been running my email through SA 2.60 to test my installation
> before converting all our users. Things have been running great, with
Martin, Jeffrey wrote:
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 gett
ctober 15, 2003 10:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] SA 2.60 occasionally does no markup on spam
>
>
> I've been running my email through SA 2.60 to test my installation
> before converting all our users. Things have been running great, with
> one
ECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] SA 2.60 occasionally does no markup on spam
I've been running my email through SA 2.60 to test my installation
before converting all our users. Things have been running great, with
one exception. On occasion, a spam will slip through, with absolutely no
SA markup in t
I've been running my email through SA 2.60 to test my installation
before converting all our users. Things have been running great, with
one exception. On occasion, a spam will slip through, with absolutely no
SA markup in the headers or subject line.
I've tried manually piping the messages in
17 matches
Mail list logo
