[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to write in log the IP of the source server and not
127.0.0.1?
I use qmail->qmail-scanner ->spamd (spamassassin)
Thanks
Sep 8 07:03:47 email spamd[7832]: connection from localhost
[127.0.0.1] at port 40938
Sep 8 07:03:47 email spamd[18364]: chec
Original Message -
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 5:03 PM
Subject: [SAtalk] Spamd log
Is it possible to write in log the IP of the source server and not
127.0.0.1?
I use qmail->qmail-scan
Is it possible to write in log the IP of the
source server and not 127.0.0.1?
I use qmail->qmail-scanner ->spamd
(spamassassin)
Thanks
Sep 8 07:03:47
email spamd[7832]: connection from localhost [127.0.0.1] at port 40938
Sep 8 07:03:47 email spamd[18364]: checking message <[EMAIL PROT
I'm sure I plastered this on the lists a while back (forgive the repost)
but...I have an e-mail toaster how-to that talks about setting up MRTG to
monitor e-mail traffic, spam counts, etc. You can check it out at:
http://www.jerfu.com/toaster
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:46:38PM +1100, zenn
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:46:38PM +1100, zenn wrote:
> I also removed the guage option and now i'm getting a flat graph...
That could mean that MRTG isn't getting numbers; by default, it will use
the last value it logged if it can't get new values.
> how are you all monitoring spam activity ?
f
urst; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spamd log to mrtg
I also removed the guage option and now i'm getting a flat graph...
how are you all monitoring spam activity ?
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Get the new Palm
I also removed the guage option and now i'm getting a flat graph...
how are you all monitoring spam activity ?
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Hurst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 12:35 AM
Subject: Re:
You might need to clear the log file when you make a change like that.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:41 AM
To: Jonathan Nichols
Cc: Tony Hoyle; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] spamd log to mrtg
On Sat
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
> > >
> > > Rich's idea is pretty cool, and I have it running
> > > here: http://dumpster.pbp.net/~mrtg/spam/
> > >
> > > However, the count just keeps growing.. I'm not quite sure what to make of
> > > the graphs. :-)
> >
> > Remove 'gauge' from the o
* Jonathan Nichols ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Rich's idea is pretty cool, and I have it running
> here: http://dumpster.pbp.net/~mrtg/spam/
>
> However, the count just keeps growing.. I'm not quite sure what to make of
> the graphs. :-)
Remove 'guage' from the mrtg config. guage is for "curren
> >
> > Rich's idea is pretty cool, and I have it running
> > here: http://dumpster.pbp.net/~mrtg/spam/
> >
> > However, the count just keeps growing.. I'm not quite sure what to make of
> > the graphs. :-)
>
> Remove 'gauge' from the options line, and it should be more sane.
>
I tried that, and
-Original Message-
>From: Jonathan Nichols [mailto:jnichols@;pbp.net]
>Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:18 AM
>To: Rich Puhek
>Cc: Dallas Engelken; Frank Pineau;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spamd log to mrtg
>
>
> Rich's idea is pretty cool, an
>
> I've got another way (not necessarily more elegant, though) at
> http://users.2z.net/rpuhek/scripts_public/spamd/
>
> My approach currently relies on grepping the syslog file, which may
> eventually be a bit cumbersome... I've also got things set up to be
> able to monitor spamd runn
On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 20:52, Kelsey Cummings wrote:
> Yet another method, using cricket which IMHO is far better than MRTG.
>
> http://www.sonic.net/~kgc/cricket/
>
Cricket can be tough to setup though.
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by
: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 11:02 AM
> | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | Subject: [SAtalk] spamd log to mrtg
> |
> |
> | Would anyone be interested in a script that pipes spamd data into mrtg
> | to be graphed?
> |
> | --
> | Chadwick L. Sor
Rich,
I have a suggestion for your scripts that would make the grepping far less
CPU intensive in my experience. With your current setup your grepping the
entire file at each running. I use the logtail part of the logcheck
package to keep tabs on appenging log files. logtail records an offset
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 14:03, Dallas Engelken wrote:
> > On 08 Oct 2002 13:01:34 -0500, you wrote:
> > >Would anyone be interested in a script that pipes spamd data
> > into mrtg
> > >to be graphed?
> > Yes. I already graph inbound and outbound mail to MRTG. A
> > spam one would be
> > nice, to
02 AM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: [SAtalk] spamd log to mrtg
|
|
| Would anyone be interested in a script that pipes spamd data into mrtg
| to be graphed?
|
| --
| Chadwick L. Sorrell
| Internet Technician
| Hancock Internet
| [EMAIL
Dallas Engelken wrote:
>
> if there is a more elegant way than this.. i'm happy to hear others solutions
> dallas
>
>
I've got another way (not necessarily more elegant, though) at
http://users.2z.net/rpuhek/scripts_public/spamd/
My approach currently relies on grepping the syslog file
>
> On 08 Oct 2002 13:01:34 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >Would anyone be interested in a script that pipes spamd data
> into mrtg
> >to be graphed?
>
>
> Yes. I already graph inbound and outbound mail to MRTG. A
> spam one would be
> nice, too.
>
>
i do this already via qmail-scanner-queue.pl
On 08 Oct 2002 13:01:34 -0500, you wrote:
>Would anyone be interested in a script that pipes spamd data into mrtg
>to be graphed?
Yes. I already graph inbound and outbound mail to MRTG. A spam one would be
nice, too.
---
This sf.net email
Would anyone be interested in a script that pipes spamd data into mrtg
to be graphed?
--
Chadwick L. Sorrell
Internet Technician
Hancock Internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http:
> spamassassin scanning happening on a machine on my internal network
> having been relayed in from the outside the envelope recipient will look
> like [EMAIL PROTECTED] where tags is a representation of the
> original envelope recipient local and domain parts.
I had written a patch for SA1.5 and
> -Original Message-
> From: Charlie Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 06 February 2002 23:42
> To: Craig Hughes
> Cc: Uwe Willenbacher; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spamd log messages...
>
> Envelope recipients are nice ... a portable
Actually, there was an error in the math in that 581% claim. It should
read 580.2% -- somehow it got rounded up instead of down.
C
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 00:14, Scott Walde wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
>
> > Then all we need is a catchy nickname for my first release :)
>
>
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 23:42, Charlie Watts wrote:
> Envelope recipients are nice ... a portable way to get the envelope
> recipient into spamd would be -great-, because we could include a
> "recipient not listed in To/Cc" rule. (Though that poses scoring
> issues...)
Getting the envelope recipien
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Then all we need is a catchy nickname for my first release :)
How about "SpamAssassin: Reduce your spam by 581%"?
ttyl
srw
--
Walde TechnologyNetworks, Internet, Intranets
Saskatoon, SK CANADA Linux Support, Web Programming
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Uwe Willenbacher wrote:
> --On Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:22 PM -0600 Dallas Engelken
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > First of all, I run SA2.1.. here is my log output.
>
> Is 2.1 ready for production environments?
>
>
People have strange attitudes about version
on 2/6/02 6:29 PM, Uwe Willenbacher at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --On Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:22 PM -0600 Dallas Engelken
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> First of all, I run SA2.1.. here is my log output.
>
> Is 2.1 ready for production environments?
>
>
Depends what you mea
> > First of all, I run SA2.1.. here is my log output.
>
> Is 2.1 ready for production environments?
>
>From my numbers, it has been more acurate than 2.01. I run it on two low
priority production servers. Have had no problems.
Dallas
___
Spamassas
--On Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:22 PM -0600 Dallas Engelken
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First of all, I run SA2.1.. here is my log output.
Is 2.1 ready for production environments?
>
> Feb 3 04:51:38 whitehat spamd[28483]: connection from
> localhost.localdomain [ 127.0.0.1 ] at p
On 6 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> > b) (preferred) get the "To" address logged
>
> To get that logged, you'll need to have spamd process the message as
> that user I think, which means removing the '-u' flags from both command
> lines. What it's logging is really not who the To: is to, but ra
Following up to my own mail, of course the question becomes "which To:
person do I log? Or should I use someone from the Cc: line?"
So I think this is probably best left as is -- just logging the user
that spamd knows about, not trying to figure anything out from the
message itself.
C
On Wed,
> I am using spamd and spamc in my set up and I find following somewhat
> strange: I get lots of syslog messages with following content:
>
> Feb 6 13:53:58 server spamd[16597]: connection from localhost [ 127.0.0.1
> ] at port 20506
> Feb 6 13:54:00 server spamd[17335]: clean message for (unknow
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 14:04, Uwe Willenbacher wrote:
>
> Feb 6 13:53:58 server spamd[16597]: connection from localhost [ 127.0.0.1
> ] at port 20506
> Feb 6 13:54:00 server spamd[17335]: clean message for (unknown):87 in 2
> seconds.
> Feb 6 13:56:57 server spamd[16597]: connection from lo
Hi all,
I am using spamd and spamc in my set up and I find following somewhat
strange: I get lots of syslog messages with following content:
Feb 6 13:53:58 server spamd[16597]: connection from localhost [ 127.0.0.1
] at port 20506
Feb 6 13:54:00 server spamd[17335]: clean message for (unknow
36 matches
Mail list logo
