On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Henning Daum wrote:
> You should pay attention to the "du" output too, not only the "ls" file
> size. On some systems at least a mechanism of the unix file system is used,
> which allows "holes" in files, which are counted into the file size but
> aren't really allocated. DMB
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:20:19 -0700 (MST)
"Charlie Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, sitewide. I'll pay attention - it's only about 2 MB bigger than when
> I mailed yesterday. If it is slowing down (which makes sense), I'll be OK
> for a while. And even if I have to clear it once a month, t
On 19 Mar 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 01:34, Charlie Watts wrote:
> > I've been using the AWL with no problems for a little over a week now. I
> > just wanted to mention this in reply to my earlier "it's broken" message.
> > I dunno what the problem was before. I don't think
Unlikely to be much of an issue for personal use. I imagine Charlie has
*lots* of users sharing a single sitewide AWL DB.
C
On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 07:28, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
>
> > My AWL database is rapidly getting big. It's up to 23MB and growing.
>
On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 01:34, Charlie Watts wrote:
> I've been using the AWL with no problems for a little over a week now. I
> just wanted to mention this in reply to my earlier "it's broken" message.
> I dunno what the problem was before. I don't think it was one.
>
> My AWL database is rapidly
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
> My AWL database is rapidly getting big. It's up to 23MB and growing.
>
> Any suggestions for how to keep it from growing without bound?
Oh, dear. I can't check the size of my AWL DB at the moment -- server is
down -- but I never considered that SA wo
I've been using the AWL with no problems for a little over a week now. I
just wanted to mention this in reply to my earlier "it's broken" message.
I dunno what the problem was before. I don't think it was one.
My AWL database is rapidly getting big. It's up to 23MB and growing.
Any suggestions f
On 19 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> This system has a number of advantages over the simple counting method
> of the old AWL implementation:
>
> 1. Spammers before could just send you 3 "clean" messages and thereby
> get themselves permanently obtaining a -100 bonus. Now they would have
> to ke
Charlie, I think some of the DB formats pre-allocate space in their
datafiles -- is it possible they just didn't zero the bytes out or
something? What happens when you run tools/check_whitelist?
C
on 2/20/02 11:25 AM, Charlie Watts at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wro
Yeah, looks like I didn't check in fast enough ;) You can either wait till
later, or do a checkout from CVS.
C
on 2/20/02 7:22 AM, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> show-stopper bugfixes. Please get the latest stuff from CVS (or wait
>> till after ~1am PST and get th
On 20 February 2002, Charlie Watts said:
> However, spamd just died on me for the first time in months.
>
> I've restarted it without the -a flag; I'll let this run a few days, and
> then try again with -a (and -D).
>
> Looking at the auto-whitelist.db file, it's broken ... here's a snippet
> fr
On 19 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Ok, it's done. That was the last thing on the list to get done before a
> 2.1 release, so now I think I'll go ahead and release in a day or two
> (after people have a chance to notice that the new stuff is broken).
I updated after getting your message yeste
> show-stopper bugfixes. Please get the latest stuff from CVS (or wait
> till after ~1am PST and get the 2.1 tarball from the website) and try it
> out over the next few days. I've re-instated the "-a" flag in the spamd
> startup scripts, but make sure you're using it, and let me know how it's
>
Oh yeah, I forgot to add implementation details:
The new DBBasedAddrList creates backward-compatible DB files. It stores the
count of messages for a user as an int keyed by the email address (with some
characters converted to _), and the total accumulated score for the user is
a floating point n
14 matches
Mail list logo
