On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Scott Lambert wrote:
-}> Bob Apthorpe suggested that mails over a large limit (100K maybe) get
-}> dropped. That's not the problem I'm facing, although now I'll know that if I
-}> see a very large mail drop through unprocessed it's not a symptom of this
-}> problem. Thanks.
-}
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 09:39:18PM +0200, Chr. von Stuckrad wrote:
> So may be something like this hit us too...
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:57:14PM -0400, Scott Lambert wrote:
> > If spamc can't connect to spamd, (all slots full on the spamd server),
> > it just passes the message through. If
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:57:14PM -0400, Scott Lambert wrote:
> Spamd running with -m parameter?
Um, I have no idea. I can check.
>
> If spamc can't connect to spamd, (all slots full on the spamd server),
> it just passes the message through. If spamd dies while running under
> something like D
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 07:30:42AM -0700, Creede Lambard wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 06:08:42AM -0400, Rick Macdougall wrote:
> >
> > BSDi 4.3 handling the spamd, being called from a Slackware 8.1 box with
> > spamc and I see the same thing in 2.60-rc3. Not often mind you, I get
> > about
So may be something like this hit us too...
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:57:14PM -0400, Scott Lambert wrote:
> If spamc can't connect to spamd, (all slots full on the spamd server),
> it just passes the message through. If spamd dies while running under
> something like DJB's daemontools, one to se
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Creede Lambard spaketh thusly:
-}Oh good, maybe I'm not alone in this. :)
Oh no you are not. ;> I am currently chasing the same problem.
We are running SA 2.55 site-wide and are seeing tons of these. Most go
though fine however some do not. I can watch in the logs as th
Oh good, maybe I'm not alone in this. :)
I didn't check the sizes on the mails that slipped through, although some of
them were just knockoffs I sent myself with a short body like "foo bar baz".
Bob Apthorpe suggested that mails over a large limit (100K maybe) get
dropped. That's not the problem
Creede Lambard wrote:
Hello all, new to the list, so apologies if this has already been covered.
I upgraded my version of SpamAssassin from 2.55 to 2.6 this morning, turned
it on, and started watching the mail log when obvious spams started appearing
in my mailbox. At first I thought it was onl
Hi,
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:52:39 -0700 Creede Lambard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all, new to the list, so apologies if this has already been covered.
>
> I upgraded my version of SpamAssassin from 2.55 to 2.6 this morning, turned
> it on, and started watching the mail log when obvious sp
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 09:38:21PM -0700, Creede Lambard wrote:
> http://www.spamassassin.org/released/
>
> there's a set of 2.60 files there -- but now that I look at the page, the
> dates on them are earlier than either rc3 or rc4.
>
> Don't know what's up with that, but as far as I can tell Ge
It's possible, but when I go to the place Gentoo specifies to pick
up the build
http://www.spamassassin.org/released/
there's a set of 2.60 files there -- but now that I look at the page, the
dates on them are earlier than either rc3 or rc4.
Don't know what's up with that, but as far as I can te
Creede Lambard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello all, new to the list, so apologies if this has already been covered.
>
> I upgraded my version of SpamAssassin from 2.55 to 2.6 this morning, turned
2.60 is not yet released. Perhaps it was one of the release candidates?
Daniel
-
Hello all, new to the list, so apologies if this has already been covered.
I upgraded my version of SpamAssassin from 2.55 to 2.6 this morning, turned
it on, and started watching the mail log when obvious spams started appearing
in my mailbox. At first I thought it was only spam that was being for
13 matches
Mail list logo
