> > What would make it take that long for such a short
> > message?
> >
>
> oops, forgot to mention that you could check the message against
> spamassassin -D. If it's reproducable this would possibly make up for a
> good bug report, if not, see my other message ;-)
Not reproducable. Tried bot
Thomas.Meyer said:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Jack Gostl wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> >
> > > Jack Gostl wrote on Mon, 16 Jun 2003 00:33:10 -0400 (EDT):
> > >
> > > > Using Pine, I checked the message ID and scanned the syslog
> > > > (which includes both spamd and sendm
Jack Gostl wrote on Mon, 16 Jun 2003 06:55:52 -0400 (EDT):
> Its tough to match up, but there is an entry that shows 303 seconds to
> process a message. What would make it take that long for such a short
> message?
>
I don't know, things just happen. I had this once with two messages, too,
and e
Jack Gostl wrote on Mon, 16 Jun 2003 06:55:52 -0400 (EDT):
> What would make it take that long for such a short
> message?
>
oops, forgot to mention that you could check the message against
spamassassin -D. If it's reproducable this would possibly make up for a
good bug report, if not, see my o
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Jack Gostl wrote on Mon, 16 Jun 2003 00:33:10 -0400 (EDT):
>
> > Using Pine, I checked the message ID and scanned the syslog (which
> > includes both spamd and sendmail entries) and located the message being
> > handed off to procmail. It wasn't even sli
Jack Gostl wrote on Mon, 16 Jun 2003 00:33:10 -0400 (EDT):
> Using Pine, I checked the message ID and scanned the syslog (which
> includes both spamd and sendmail entries) and located the message being
> handed off to procmail. It wasn't even slightly busy at that time.
>
The machine doesn't need
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> At 21:54 15/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> >
> > > At 18:22 15/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
> > >
> > > >I just had a piece of spam slip through with no X-header. When I saved it,
> > > >and manually ran i
same problem with me but the email is below 256kb. Any idea to fix it plz.
> At 18:22 15/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
>
> >I just had a piece of spam slip through with no X-header. When I saved
it,
> >and manually ran it through "spamc -R" it got something like a 17.
> >
> >By now I've run ten
At 21:54 15/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> At 18:22 15/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
>
> >I just had a piece of spam slip through with no X-header. When I saved it,
> >and manually ran it through "spamc -R" it got something like a 17.
> >
> >By now I've
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> At 18:22 15/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
>
> >I just had a piece of spam slip through with no X-header. When I saved it,
> >and manually ran it through "spamc -R" it got something like a 17.
> >
> >By now I've run tens of thousands of messages through
At 18:22 15/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
I just had a piece of spam slip through with no X-header. When I saved it,
and manually ran it through "spamc -R" it got something like a 17.
By now I've run tens of thousands of messages through spamc/spamd and,
except for OS crashes, this is the first o
11 matches
Mail list logo
