Dan,
What happens if you manually run a mail through with spamc? We saw this
sort of problem when spamd was taking too long and spamc timed out and
returned the mail unprocessed. We resolved it by using the -t flag
with spamc.
-Original Message-
From: Dan O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
> Yesterday, at approximately 5:20pm, my server stopped filtering spam... it
> just decided to happily pass it along to its intended recipient. All the
> processes appeared to be running. /var/log/maillog shows calls to spamd,
> and it responding to connections, just doesn't seem to be doing any
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Dale Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:08:56PM -0800, Dale Harris elucidated:
> >
> > I would have searched the archive for the but SF seems less than
> > helpful. I'm seeing a lot of errors like:
> >
> > Jan 20 03:44:11 skull spamd[27980]: lock: 27980 unlink of lock
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:08:56PM -0800, Dale Harris elucidated:
>
> I would have searched the archive for the but SF seems less than
> helpful. I'm seeing a lot of errors like:
>
> Jan 20 03:44:11 skull spamd[27980]: lock: 27980 unlink of lock file
> /home/rodmur/.spamassassin/bayes.lock faile
from the spamd documentation:
"-m number, --max-children=number
Specify a maximum number of children to spawn. Spamd will wait until
another child finishes before forking again. Meanwhile, incoming connections
will be queued.
Please note that there is a OS specific maximum of connections
thanks! that's exactly what I needed to know!
Robert Lacroix wrote:
from the spamd documentation:
"-m number, --max-children=number
Specify a maximum number of children to spawn. Spamd will wait until
another child finishes before forking again. Meanwhile, incoming connections
will be queue
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 29 December 2003 23:49, Hans Gerber wrote:
> Hello to everyone,
>
> We are running a server with some dozens of users with shell
> access. Up to now everyone has the ability to call spamassassin from
> within .procamilrc. This gives us quite
Which Version of SA are you running? I'm running a patched 2.4x version.
(Yeah I know...but it is kicking booty!!!)
With WAY more custom rules then prbly anyone else on this list I average
only 20 megs of usage. I'm using no net test in SA though. Not sure if that
matters.
--Chris
> -Origin
Damian Gerow schrieb:
[...]
I'm *really* looking forward to if/when this makes it into the main SA
tree.
Hm. Nice for SQL-users, but wouldn't help with ConfSourceLDAP.
Personally I'd love to set bayes_path somehow, but currently that's
impossible. However, I wouldn't want my users to be able to c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 24 December 2003 11:06, Shane Wegner wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 08:47:53PM -0800, Douglas Kirkland wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 December 2003 14:50, Shane Wegner wrote:
> > > I currently have spamd set up to maintain separate
> > > confi
Thus spake Shane Wegner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [24/12/03 14:11]:
> I found some mention of this in the archives whilst trying
> to find an answer to this problem. However, I could only
> find a patch which implements the auto-whitelist support in
> SQL. Though I have to agree, having Bayes storage
>
Try starting spamd with the -D option which will generate debug information.
That should help you find where it's crashing.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Sean Kirkpatrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 1:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] spamd d
Thus spake Shane Wegner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [23/12/03 17:50]:
> I am setting up a Spam filtering system using Exim/spamd
> system-wide using multiple domains.. I would like to give
> each user control over Spam filtering via a web interface,
> giving them the ability to control any user_prefs sett
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 23 December 2003 14:50, Shane Wegner wrote:
> I currently have spamd set up to maintain separate
> configuration data for each [EMAIL PROTECTED] on the system via
> spamd running as its own user with the following options.
> -d -u spamd -x -
Thanks guys!
fast_spamassassin is what qmail-scanner auto-detected.. I compared it to our existing
production SpamAssassin server which is using fast_spamassassin too, but I forgot, I
think my boss made some modifications to spamc to force it to use verbose mode when we
built it... It will be a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having an odd problem with SpamAssassin 2.60, Qmail-Scanner 1.20
> and "net"qmail 1.04 compiled from source (RedHat 9).
>
> I have ran spamd in debug mode and looked at the spamd script to
> verify my config files are located here:
>
> /usr/share/spamassass
At 12:40 PM 12/3/2003, Martin, Jeremy wrote:
I'm having an odd problem with SpamAssassin 2.60, Qmail-Scanner 1.20 and
"net"qmail 1.04 compiled from source (RedHat 9).
qmail-scanner does not use spamd/spamc's modification of subject lines, it
does the subject taggigng itself.
Please read the qmail
> in the foreground of shell I run:
> /usr/bin/spamd --username=popuser -D
> --virtual-config-dir=/var/qmail/mailnames/%d/%l/configs/ -a
>
>
> in my syslog files I see this:
> Using default config for qmailq:
> /var/qmail/mailnames///configs//user_prefs
>
> atleast I know why I can not get per use
Try the Spamd script for SuSE at
http://devel-home.kde.org/~kmail/unsupported/spamd
This script allows for start/stop/restart/status under init.d
(the header says written for 8.0 but it works like a champ under 9.0 pro
too)
Todd
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:40:34 +0100
Margit Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I solved my problem:
I installed the perl module DB_File 1.806 and BerkeleyDB 2.7.7.
Formerly (SpamAssassin 2.55) I used NDBM_File format to save bayes
databases.
Now spamd is working fine :-))
Margit
-
Upgrade your version of perl to 5.8.x
-Jim
Jim Upwood
System Administrator
Bond, Schoeneck, and King
Syracuse, NY
-Original Message-
From: Margit Meyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] spamd consumes huge amounts
Russell,
I suspect you are not comparing apples to apples here, I asked for the
command you use when running manually, I am assuming a) you are not
logging in as the user spamd and b) you are not running:
(as user spamd)
$ spamd -x -H /home/spamd -d -d -c -a
Because this is the command your sta
> Yeah I can confirm a spamd startup script works
>
> Send yours, also send what you use from the command line, what OS you
> use. etc. etc.
>
> tm.
I did send that stuff before - trying to save some list bandwidth. Ce'st la
vie. Here goes:
RedHat 6.2, Perl 5.6.1, SpamAssassin 2.55
Hello,
> RedHat 6.2, Perl 5.6.1, SpamAssassin 2.55
>
> Hello,
>
> This morning I came into the office to find that qmail-scanner had gone
> insane and lots all nights emails for me. I rebooted the system to try to
> get everything back to ground zero. The problem was that the spamd init
> script decided
> Here's my init script (copied from the recommended RedHat
> script from SA
> tarball)
>
> #!/bin/sh
> #
> # spamassassin This script starts and stops the spamd daemon
> #
> # chkconfig: 2345 80 30
> #
> # description: spamd is a daemon process which uses
> SpamAssassin to check
> #
Dennis Duval wrote:
I have to restart spamd within a couple of minutes after restarting syslogd
with the init script or it will crash the system. However doing a
killall -HUP syslogd has no affect on spamd and it continues logging. I
know of no other applications that would crash a system as a r
Justin Mason wrote:
> Dennis Duval writes:
>> Morris Jones wrote:
>>> I've never had a problem like this, of course. But I
>>> wonder what you might discover if you turned debugging
>>> on for spamd? Start it with the -D flag?
>>>
>> Thanks to Justin Mason and Tom Meunier for pointing out
>> the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dennis Duval writes:
>Morris Jones wrote:
>> I've never had a problem like this, of course. But I
>> wonder what you might discover if you turned debugging on
>> for spamd? Start it with the -D flag?
>>
>Thanks to Justin Mason and Tom Meunier for po
Morris Jones wrote:
> I've never had a problem like this, of course. But I
> wonder what you might discover if you turned debugging on
> for spamd? Start it with the -D flag?
>
Thanks to Justin Mason and Tom Meunier for pointing out the -m option and
the FAQ on this questions. Last night, I remo
-m 15 will limit it to 15 spamd instances. Give that a shot.
I'm kinda surprised by how quickly this happens, though.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Dennis Duval
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 5:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Dennis Duval" writes:
>I'm new to spamassassin and I'm having a serious problem. The problem is
>that the number of running spamd instances suddenly start increasing
>dramatically until the point all memory and swap space are used up, thus
>locking
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:43:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> wondering why spamd is even looking for users, since all it's presumably
> supposed to do is tag spam. Is this something I can get spamd to stop
> even looking for, since it's only supposed to scan for relay?
all it does is tag
what is typical in your maillog?
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kris Deugau writes:
>"Cheryl L. Southard" wrote:
>> Does anyone know if the "-m" flag is now more stable? We've since
>> upgraded to Spamassassin 2.54 and Solaris 9.
>
>I don't recall hearing any bugs specific to -m, but I though I saw some
>odd beha
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:41:11PM -0700, Cheryl L. Southard wrote:
Normally, spamd takes about 30 seconds to complete, but when it's
in swapping-hell it takes approximately 550 seconds, and since
each one takes 20MB of memory, quite a few (up to MAX_DAEMON_CHILDREN,
I suppose) can start up and
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:41:11PM -0700, Cheryl L. Southard wrote:
> Normally, spamd takes about 30 seconds to complete, but when it's
> in swapping-hell it takes approximately 550 seconds, and since
> each one takes 20MB of memory, quite a few (up to MAX_DAEMON_CHILDREN,
> I suppose) can start u
"Cheryl L. Southard" wrote:
> Does anyone know if the "-m" flag is now more stable? We've since
> upgraded to Spamassassin 2.54 and Solaris 9.
I don't recall hearing any bugs specific to -m, but I though I saw some
odd behaviour reported on Solaris.
> Or maybe you folks can help me find another
In brief, I've found the -m flag very stable on both 2.55 and 2.60. I
found at certain times of day, a combination of a burst of spam and slow
RBLs left me with too many spamds (not to mention procmails and
sendmails) for the the amount of real memory I had. I added a bunch of RAM
and the problem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to send the mail elaborated from spamd to another
external server.
I use smtproutes in order to select the relay with
AntiVirus and/or AntiSpamming.
domain1.com:localhost:2525#antivirus
domain2.com:localhost:783 #antispamming
===
> I'm using SA 2.6 spamd/spamc
>
> I'm using it in a very loaded server, I get arround 2 mail connections
> per second.
> I want to know if there are people having this kind of load, or even
> bigger, cause I don't think this should be a big load for the server.
>
> The server is Pentium III 1 g
Matt Kettler wrote on Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:57:08 -0400:
> I was refering to the eating memory problem. And in general I'd expect
> bayes to cause some kind of slow increase too.
No, I really can't see any increase over the time. It stays almost exactly at
the same level over days and weeks.
>
I dunno. I've had mine turned off forever and I've had ZERO FNs since
upgrading to 2.60 and dumping about 200 messages through sa-learn.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Brian Morrison wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:45:54 -0500 (CDT) in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Robert A.
> Hayden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:45:54 -0500 (CDT) in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Robert A.
Hayden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A few things I can recommend that speed things up:
>
> 1) Turn off RBL lookups
How much additional spam did you want to have to look at?
--
Brian Morrison
bdm at fenrir dot org dot u
We are receiving near this much mail traffic, I get about 1 connection every
2 seconds, average of 50k messages per day.
I am using spamD on 3 different servers to spread the load around, it's
working great!
In am also running my own creation (WinSpamC) which allows for
load-balancing between mul
I am running 2.6 on a P4-2.4GHz that gets about 1/3 that amount of traffic
and most of my analyses are completed in under .25 seconds. The box is
running RH9.0 and using postfix to call procmail.
A few things I can recommend that speed things up:
1) Turn off RBL lookups
2) Run a local cachin
[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-scanner ->spamd (spamassassin)
At 03:31 PM 10/7/03 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote on Mon, 06 Oct 2003 11:16:04 -0400:
> If you're using it, disable bayes and see what happens.. Bayes is a very
> heavy memory consumer and could be a significant portion of the problem.
> Disabling it will at least help clarify if i
Matt Kettler wrote on Mon, 06 Oct 2003 11:16:04 -0400:
> If you're using it, disable bayes and see what happens.. Bayes is a very
> heavy memory consumer and could be a significant portion of the problem.
> Disabling it will at least help clarify if it's bayes database size
> related, or someth
Bill Polhemus wrote on Mon, 6 Oct 2003 11:41:53 -0500:
> What's the problem?
>
You didn't mean that serious, did you?
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 03:30:17PM -0400, Rob Mangiafico wrote:
> Actually, when I type "spamd --help" from the command line with our newly
> installed 2.60 software, I get:
> ---
> Insecure directory in $ENV{PATH} while running with -T switch at
> /usr/lib/perl5/5.6.0/Cwd.pm line 85.
Perhaps y
> Actually, when I type "spamd --help" from the command line with our newly
> installed 2.60 software, I get:
> ---
> Insecure directory in $ENV{PATH} while running with -T switch at
> /usr/lib/perl5/5.6.0/Cwd.pm line 85.
> ---
>
> spamd appears to be running fine currently. Any ideas why this i
> > It's the first option on the list if you type spamd --help
>
> Thanks. Just didn't see it in the online docs, so wanted to make sure and
> feed it back to the doc maintainers.
Actually, when I type "spamd --help" from the command line with our newly
installed 2.60 software, I get:
---
In
> It's the first option on the list if you type spamd --help
Thanks. Just didn't see it in the online docs, so wanted to make sure and
feed it back to the doc maintainers.
> > In the 2.60 docs, the -a "auto whitelist" parameter is no
> > longer listed as an option. Is it still supported? If n
It's the first option on the list if you type spamd --help
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Mangiafico [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] spamd and -a option in 2.60?
>
> In the 2.60 docs, the -a "auto whitelis
Sheesh, how much for a Gig of RAM now, about 200 Euros or so?
What's the problem?
William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.
Polhemus Engineering Company
Katy, Texas USA
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kai
Schaetzl
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 9:12
At 10:11 AM 10/6/2003, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
What can be done about this?
If you're using it, disable bayes and see what happens.. Bayes is a very
heavy memory consumer and could be a significant portion of the problem.
Disabling it will at least help clarify if it's bayes database size
related,
On 2003-09-30 17:33:54 +0200, Ole Nomann Thomsen wrote:
> All of the waiting spamd-processes appears to be in the run-queue, thus
> driving the load-factor way above 200. (At which point the command-line
spamd(1):
-m num, --max-children num Allow maximum num children
Use it, otherwise s
> My /service/spamd/run looks like:
>
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -a 6000 /usr/bin/spamd -D
> -L -x -u spamd 2>&1
>
>
monitoring some of the memory used by some of my spamd children, i've
seen a handful hit 87MB of RSS, usually they hang out about 19-21MB.
thi
Roger Merchberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have now created a run file using qmail's tcpserver & friends, here:
>
>/service/smtpd/run
>
>and this file contains:
>
>#!/bin/sh
>exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 3200 \
> /usr/bin/spamd -s stderr -L -c 2>&1 5>&1
You mean /service/spamd/run,
Ole Nomann Thomsen wrote:
Spamd is running nicely, taking about 12 seconds to service each spamc
-request. There are about 100 mails pr. minute. This spins along for maybe 3
hours.
At 18:54 (09/30, CEST, that's zulu+2h) *something* happens, so that most of
the spamd-processes, started around t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Start spamd with the "--socketpath /path/to/spamd.sock" option and
> then call spamc with the "-U /path/to/spamd.sock" option. Test,
> adjust, repeat...
Can I just:
touch /var/tmp/spamd.sock
chmod 777 /var/tmp/spamd.sock
Or is there another way
--On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:48 AM + Jim
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> spamd --socketpath=/path/to/socket/file
>
> spamc -U /path/to/socket/file
If this is the recommended configuration, then I would suggest that 2.61
change the spec file to make use of this in RPM-based installations.
Hi,
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:45:35 -0500 "Mike Loiterman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just reading the release notes for 2.60 and noticed this:
>
> - spamd now supports UNIX-domain sockets for low-overhead scanning,
> thanks
> to Steve Friedl for this. This is strongly recommended if you'r
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:45:35PM -0500, Mike Loiterman wrote:
> How do I implement this?
spamd --socketpath=/path/to/socket/file
spamc -U /path/to/socket/file
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thi
: John Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 1:58 PM
> To: 'Chris Santerre'
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] spamd vs spamassassin from .forward files
>
>
> Chris,
>
> Are there any custom rules to deal with the massive amount of
> f
> > If performance is an issue, how about an option like...
> >
> > HIT_AND_RUN 1
> >
> > ...that would cause spamd to stop processing once your threshhold
had
> > been met? IOW why keep scanning text once the message has been
> > identified as spam? I'm sure that I'm missing something here but I'
I have added a .cf files to disable osirusoft, and set rbl_timeout and
razor_timeout to 5 seconds.
I start spamd with the following:
971 ?R 0:11 /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/spamd -a -u pop3 -p 1783 -i
65.161.2.7 -A 65.161.2.30,65.161.2.16,65.161.2.14
Sep 11 19:02:19 spam0 spamd[1986]:
Behalf Of Steve
Thomas
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 5:04 PM
To: Scott Rothgaber
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spamd performance
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 11:32:16AM -0400, Scott Rothgaber is rumored to have
said:
>
> If performance is an issue, how about an option like.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 11:32:16AM -0400, Scott Rothgaber is rumored to have said:
>
> If performance is an issue, how about an option like...
>
> HIT_AND_RUN 1
>
> ...that would cause spamd to stop processing once your threshhold had
> been met? IOW why keep scanning text once the message has
Sorry for jumping in.
If performance is an issue, how about an option like...
HIT_AND_RUN 1
...that would cause spamd to stop processing once your threshhold had
been met? IOW why keep scanning text once the message has been
identified as spam? I'm sure that I'm missing something here but I'd
At 10:33 11/09/2003, Richard I. Kirkcaldy wrote:
Hi,
I'm using exiscan with spamd, and recently it's stopped
working. I've been trying to get dcc working with spamassassin, but gave
up - so I'm assuming that's what has caused it.
Nope that's not it. I'm running Exim 4.22 and SpamAssassin
> -Original Message-
> From: John Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 7:03 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] spamd vs spamassassin from .forward files
>
>
> Please forgive me if this is already answered in the list
> archives. But, if
>
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 04:03:02PM -0700, John Schneider wrote:
> This seems to work OK, but I'm not sure it is an efficient setup.
It is not. Provided that you have a scenario with non-linear
delivery and/or multiple users, there is practically no use at
all in calling spamassassin when you cou
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 09:42:02PM -0400, Paul Farber wrote:
> New machine... dual 1.2Ghz AMD CPU's, 1 Gb RAM, Ultra-SCSI-3 (160Mbps) drive:
Single Duron 1.3GHz CPU, FreeBSD 4.8: some stats for Sept. 11, 2003:
Total analyzed :827
Average analysis time :
At 09:42 PM 9/11/03 -0400, Paul Farber wrote:
New machine... dual 1.2Ghz AMD CPU's, 1 Gb RAM, Ultra-SCSI-3 (160Mbps) drive:
1) exactly what comands do you launch spamd with?
2) what exact command are you executing to process your messages in this
test and time them? If spamc isn't part of the ans
primary mail server running qmail has the following for local deliver
instructions (other items related to qmail processing not shown):
/usr/bin/spamc -u pop3 -d 65.161.2.8 -p 1783
this tosses the message to the dual AMD/spamd server set up with:
#!/bin/sh
exec \
/usr/bin/spamd -a -m 100 -u pop
New machine... dual 1.2Ghz AMD CPU's, 1 Gb RAM, Ultra-SCSI-3 (160Mbps) drive:
first number time second number msg size
16.0 66395
2.7 5884
2.1 1456
6.8 1519
5.0 1307
4.5 1436
4.5 1436
7.6 1367
2.7 1367
1.5 3504
8.6 1374
3.5 1421
2.3 1319
7.5 1519
2.0 1485
8.5 1367
6.7 5319
4.0 2
ED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spamd performance
> New machine... dual 1.2Ghz AMD CPU's, 1 Gb RAM, Ultra-SCSI-3 (160Mbps)
drive:
>
> first number time second number msg size
> 16.0 66395
> 2.7 5884
> 2.1 1456
> 6.8 1519
>
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 04:03:02PM -0700, John Schneider wrote:
> Please forgive me if this is already answered in the list archives. But, if
> it is, I didn't find it:
cd ${WHEREYOUUNPACKEDTHESOURCE};
find . -name 'README*' -print;
cat ${FILETHATLOOKSRELEVANT};
--
Scott Lambert
At 06:21 PM 9/10/03 -0400, Paul Farber wrote:
Whats causing the 3X difference in msg scanning?
Are you using _ANY_ network checks? DNS blacklists, razor2, dcc, pyzor, etc
all have wildly varying times because they are heavily dependant on the
load at the remote server and the load of every inter
On Wednesday 10 September 2003 03:21 pm, Paul Farber wrote:
> hello all
>
> new install of spamassassin 2.55 on a RH 9.0 machine (custom kernel build)
>
> PC is an 800Mhz VIA Eden C-3 processor, 512Mb RAM 20Gb HDD. THe primary
> mail server uses spamc to toss the mail to the scanner.
>
> Heres a
Bart,
Thank you! This is of great value to me and I really appreciat the time you
took to review and comment!
Regards,
Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Schaefer
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Larry Gilson wrote:
>
> > It appears that even though spamc aborts the attempted spamd
> > c
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Larry Gilson wrote:
> It appears that even though spamc aborts the attempted spamd connection
> after 3 retries, it will not produce a non-zero exit code. Is it my
> recipe or spamc?
It's spamc. From the manual page:
-f Cause spamc to safe-failover if it can't conn
Hi Bart,
Thanks for the reply!
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Schaefer
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Larry Gilson wrote:
>
> > > > :0fw
> > > > * !^Subject:.*SAtalk
> > > > | spamc -u "$LOGNAME"
> > > >
> > > > SCANNED=$?
> > > >
> > > > :0 Efw
> > > > * SCANNED ?? ^^0^^
> > > > | spamassa
> -Original Message-
> From: Louis LeBlanc
> I'm afraid I don't have a test server - all my work is
> production environment development, which keeps life
> interesting, and makes me very careful about any changes.
It appears that even though spamc aborts the attempted spamd connectio
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Larry Gilson wrote:
> > > :0fw
> > > * !^Subject:.*SAtalk
> > > | spamc -u "$LOGNAME"
> > >
> > > SCANNED=$?
> > >
> > > :0 Efw
> > > * SCANNED ?? ^^0^^
> > > | spamassassin -a
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work. The E causes the second
> > to always be skipped unl
On 09/02/03 01:19 PM, Karl Larsen sat at the `puter and typed:
>
>
>
> You both should just go to the FAQ on the SpamAssassin web and
> use what's there. Here is my .procmailrc and it's been working fine:
Thanks for the input, but I think you're missing the whole point of
this part of t
On 09/02/03 07:52 PM, Larry Gilson sat at the `puter and typed:
>
>
> > :0
> > * !^Subject:.*Satalk
> > {
> >:0fw: spamassassin.lock
> >* < 256000
> >| spamc
> >
> >SCANNED=$?
> >
> >:0fw: spamassassin.lock
> >* ! SCANNED ?? ^^0^^
> >* < 256000
> >| spamassassin
> -Original Message-
> From: Louis LeBlanc
> > :0fw
> > * !^Subject:.*SAtalk
> > | spamc -u "$LOGNAME"
> >
> > SCANNED=$?
> >
> > :0 Efw
> > * SCANNED ?? ^^0^^
> > | spamassassin -a
>
> I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work. The E causes the second
> to always be skipped unless the fir
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
> On 09/01/03 04:41 PM, Larry Gilson sat at the `puter and typed:
> > Hi Louis,
> >
> > Please forgive the delay in responding. I was out of touch for a period of
> > time.
>
> Ditto . . .
>
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Louis LeBlanc
>
On 09/01/03 04:41 PM, Larry Gilson sat at the `puter and typed:
> Hi Louis,
>
> Please forgive the delay in responding. I was out of touch for a period of
> time.
Ditto . . .
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Louis LeBlanc
>
> > After rereading a lot of procmail docs, I've found that th
Hi Louis,
Please forgive the delay in responding. I was out of touch for a period of
time.
> -Original Message-
> From: Louis LeBlanc
> After rereading a lot of procmail docs, I've found that the exitcode
> is saved when the 'w' flag is used in the procmail recipe as follows:
I was mo
On 08/29/03 09:21 PM, Larry Gilson sat at the `puter and typed:
> Hey Louis,
>
> Please forgive this reply. Your messages keep getting wrapped in a
> text file as it comes through with an unknown content-type:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit
Sorry about that. Thanks for givi
Hey Louis,
Please forgive this reply. Your messages keep getting wrapped in a text
file as it comes through with an unknown content-type:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit
I did read the message even though it is not included here.
So if I understand correctly, what you really wan
On 08/29/03 01:37 PM, Larry Gilson sat at the `puter and typed:
> Hi Louis,
>
> > From: Louis LeBlanc
>
> > Sorry for barging in on this thread, but I'm trying to get this
> > working myself right now (spamd/spamc with procmail). I have one
> > question though.
>
> Join the party!
:-)
> > Rega
Hi Louis,
> -Original Message-
> From: Louis LeBlanc
> Sorry for barging in on this thread, but I'm trying to get this
> working myself right now (spamd/spamc with procmail). I have one
> question though.
Join the party!
> Regarding spamc, if the -f flag us used and it can't connect
On 08/28/03 11:08 PM, Larry Gilson sat at the `puter and typed:
> First, I use Procmail rather than the spamfilter script. The concept is
> similar but my experience with the script is limited.
>
> I had found a link to SecuritySage that might help you best.
>
> http://www.securitysage.com/guide
First, I use Procmail rather than the spamfilter script. The concept is
similar but my experience with the script is limited.
I had found a link to SecuritySage that might help you best.
http://www.securitysage.com/guides/postfix_uce_sa.html
I will continue to help if you think it would be ben
Hi Jason,
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason McCormick
I looked at your config. It looks right. I just have a couple of mundane
questions.
1) Why do you think this is not working? Is SA not even marking the
message?
2) Is spamd running? (netstat -l | grep 783)
3) Do you see anything i
1 - 100 of 450 matches
Mail list logo
