We don't run spamd here. It's a custom system (actually built using POE). At
the moment I don't *think* it's leaking - it was Net::FTP that was leaking
like a seive, but I won't be able to put a 100% certainty on that until
later today.
(btw: any chance you could post to the list in plain text? I
> -Original Message-
> From: brad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Running SA 1.5 / SPAMD -u nobody -d on a machine that accepts
> 88k mails
> per day.
>
>
> Today was the big test, and there was a huge failure. The
> issue is that I
> get so many procmail processes opening that the CP
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I'm not a sendmail expert, but IMO the problem is the number of
> concurrent deliveries sendmail is allowing.
>
> Basically a spam-check may take up to 10 seconds per mail, so
> sendmail should run only a certa
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Sergeant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> We don't run spamd here. It's a custom system (actually built
> using POE). At
> the moment I don't *think* it's leaking - it was Net::FTP
> that was leaking
> like a seive, but I won't be able to put a 100% certa
Is anyone on the SPAM News Mailing List ran by Pete Moss. No matter what I do
I can not get this email whitelisted. Does anyone have any ideas.
TIA
Forwarded From: "Pete Moss Publications <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results
-
If I am getting spam with "Undisclosed recipients" in the header, how would
the mail server (qmail) have known who to deliver it to had it not been
spam? Or does the server (qmail) just choose to log messages with bcc's as
undisclosed recipients even though it knows who the message is to?
Are al
> -Original Message-
> From: John Weissberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 17 January 2002 07:35
> To: Tony Hoyle
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Postfix set-up
>
>
> Sorry to be such a newbie but... I have no idea what the
> spamfilter file should
> look like. Can y
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:44:00AM -0500, Fox wrote:
> If I am getting spam with "Undisclosed recipients" in the header, how would
> the mail server (qmail) have known who to deliver it to had it not been
> spam? Or does the server (qmail) just choose to log messages with bcc's as
> undisclosed r
I did not see this in the archive but I may have missed it.
I have a dual 133 box with 64megs of ram and 2.2.20
I build 1.5 and make test failed
I did some digging and it turns out it is taking spamd a long time 7-20
seconds to start. It takes so long to start that the spamc test fails.
It would
I sent a copy of the entire mail message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] but I thought some of it
should be brought up on this list.
The following body text didn't get hits. I would think that "FREE
HARDCORE TEEN PORN" should be worth some points in one of the porn
filters Also the "I hate free porn! Don't
Problem: CPU usage with procmail to high, MTA stops accepting email
because of load average / Sendmail 8.11 has problems with SA and
unexpected or long error codes.
Potential Resolutions and what I have learned thus far please feel free to
adjust:
Don't run your smtp server / pop3 server and SA
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 10:51, brad wrote:
> SA takes 5-7 seconds per message and can leave
> hundreds of procmail processes running.
That sounds like a problem right there. I run spamc/spamd with -L option
to skip all network access and it takes a tiny fraction of a second per
message. Razor and t
Gotta love it when you sign the contract to be the exclusive email provider for China.
C
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 01:32, Matt Sergeant wrote:
[1] Yes, 1 billion. Currently we're pushing about 7 million, but we're
ramping up very fast indeed.
just FEI (everyone's):
Yesterday or the day before I changed the default in 2.0CVS so that -f is on in spamc. -f is still accepted as a do-nothing argument for backward-compatibility.
C
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 09:17, Tony Hoyle wrote:
#!/bin/bash
spamc -f | /usr/sbin/sendmail -i $2
Yeah, it does happen quite often in some places. Think company-wide email to 10,000 employees where if you listed everyone in the To: field the message would be simply enormous. Some people in these kinds of scenarios used poorly configured mass-mailing software.
C
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 10:51, brad wrote:
Problem: CPU usage with procmail to high, MTA stops accepting email
because of load average / Sendmail 8.11 has problems with SA and
unexpected or long error codes.
Potential Resolutions and what I have learned thus far please feel free to
adjust:
Has anyone successfully used the milter as a direct plugin yet? My
procmailrc in /usr/local/etc/ is just invoking the spamc -f process.
Brad
On 17 Jan 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 10:51, brad wrote:
>
> Problem: CPU usage with procmail to high, MTA stops accepting emai
Could you send us your procmail recipe? And also do you see as many spamc processes as procmail processes? If not, you're probably having procmail globally lock something, and thereby serializing the highly parallelizable DNS lookups.
C
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 12:05, brad wrote:
Has
:0fw:spam.lock
| spamc -f
:0e
{
EXITCODE=$?
}
and no there are not hundreds of spamc processes that I noticed. I did
mention that the perl Net::DNS module was found, and in the -D debug it is
not installed. Could this be part of the issue? I am doing razor lookups
and rbl lookups.
brad
On 17
Are you recomending spamd -d -L -D is ok and then call it with the
procmailrc of spamc -f
Brad
On 17 Jan 2002, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 10:51, brad wrote:
> > SA takes 5-7 seconds per message and can leave
> > hundreds of procmail processes running.
>
> That sounds like a
Hey guys, a feature request for allowing customization of the mangling of
the subject line. Rather than *SPAM* which is a bit on the
excessive side and not having anything at all. How about allowing a
customization in the .cf file to something like [SP] or something. I'd
rather not go
> Hey guys, a feature request for allowing customization of the mangling of
> the subject line. Rather than *SPAM* which is a bit on the
> excessive side and not having anything at all. How about allowing a
> customization in the .cf file to something like [SP] or something. I'd
> rath
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 13:01, brad wrote:
> Are you recomending spamd -d -L -D is ok and then call it with the
> procmailrc of spamc -f
Well, "recommend" is too strong a word, since I don't run a large volume
mailserver to lots of customers.But I do know that I run spamd -d -L -c
and put spamc -f
On line 190 of NoMailAudit.pm:
$from = "From
$f ".(scalar
localtime(time))."\n";
should be changed
to
$from = "\tfrom $f
".(scalar localtime(time))."\n";
Some commercial virus scanners such as mirapoint
(which uses Trend Viruswall) reads
this From line as the end of
In my experience the problem is what you are using for local delivery.
Sendmail on a normally loaded box can easily handle 100K messages per day.
It's what you use for local delivery that can really kill you.
The Spamd/spamc combo, from initial testing, isn't all that load intensive.
This real
Matt Sergeant said:
> > Basically a spam-check may take up to 10 seconds per mail, so
> > sendmail should run only a certain number of concurrent deliveries
> > (20 or so?) and wait for them to complete before spawning more.
>
> 10 seconds is way too long for us. We aim to get that down to abou
Matt Sergeant said:
> OK, I've just finished a run of 1 emails, and the server isn't leaking
> that much (only enough to consider that it's perl not returning free memory
> to the system after processing large files), so assuming you fixed the
> cirular reference problem with M::S::Conf, the
"Fox" said:
> If I am getting spam with "Undisclosed recipients" in the header, how would
> the mail server (qmail) have known who to deliver it to had it not been
> spam? Or does the server (qmail) just choose to log messages with bcc's as
> undisclosed recipients even though it knows who the
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 12:29, brad wrote:
:0fw:spam.lock
| spamc -f
:0e
{
EXITCODE=$?
}
and no there are not hundreds of spamc processes that I noticed. I did
Yeah, as I thought. You're using a (probably global) lockfile on this recipe, so procmail is waiting for the previous spamc
I would recommend:
spamd -d -L -a -c
and
spamc -f
for production systems. But I don't much care for DNS-blacklists. If you're using SA on high volumes of mail, I would think you want to carefully think about your DNS design before removing the -L. If you're using SA on low volumes, I
Worked.
I am now scanning all the mail, the load average on the system is
load averages: 0.83, 1.00, 0.98
spamd -u nobody -d -L
and removed the spam.lock. Procmail is at about 60 processes per second
but it seems to be clearing them quickly. Most email gets scanned in 0 or
1 second. I have seen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> On line 190 of NoMailAudit.pm:
>$from = "From $f ".(scalar localtime(time))."\n";
> should be changed to
>$from = "\tfrom $f ".(scalar localtime(time))."\n";
> Some commercial virus scanners such as mirapoint (which uses Trend
> Viruswall) reads this From line
Edward Fang said:
> Hey guys, a feature request for allowing customization of the mangling of
> the subject line. Rather than *SPAM* which is a bit on the
> excessive side and not having anything at all. How about allowing a
> customization in the .cf file to something like [SP] or so
brad said:
> Has anyone successfully used the milter as a direct plugin yet? My
> procmailrc in /usr/local/etc/ is just invoking the spamc -f process.
Georg himself (the author) has ;) I would recommend it BTW. It would
remove those procmail processes from the picture, bringing the load down.
I found a problem with today's CVS build, it may have existed before today I
don't know. If the subject header is in all caps, and you have subject
rewriting on, and you set what the subject will be tagged as (this part may
not be part of the problem), it creates a new subject header which only
co
On 17 Jan 2002, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 13:01, brad wrote:
> > Are you recomending spamd -d -L -D is ok and then call it with the
> > procmailrc of spamc -f
>
> Well, "recommend" is too strong a word, since I don't run a large volume
> mailserver to lots of customers.But I
Thanks to Charlie Watt's example maildroprc, I was able to come up with a
way to configure vpopmail to use maildrop, and have maildrop scan the
message, and if it's tagged as possible Spam, deliver it to a SPAM folder in
the users Maildir, which can be read via sqwebmail or courier-imap.
So, what
Correcting myself...I noticed that there was a problem in my filter
rules...if the SPAM folder didn't exist, it would defer, not do a normal
delivery. Corrected copy below :)
Dave
###
# Mailfilter rules created by Dave Weiner
> Is anyone on the SPAM News Mailing List ran by Pete Moss. No matter what I do
> I can not get this email whitelisted. Does anyone have any ideas.
> Forwarded From: "Pete Moss Publications <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In order for people to help you then you would need to include
Hi,
Can anyone give me pointers on how I could easily count the spam that is
filtered by spam assassin.
Whether I can write a small perl script, or do some shell scripting or
anything to basically increment a text file counter by one for each spam
which is filtered.
Thanks
Arrchie
> Are all "Undisclosed recipient" type emails spam?
No. Unfortunately there is a low correlation there.
In particular the Sendmail vacation(1) program autoresponds with out
of the office messages without bothering to add a To: header and
generates these types of messages as a normal course of
> > Are all "Undisclosed recipient" type emails spam?
>
> nope -- Bcc: is an accepted way to forward if you want to keep some
> people's email addrs secret, for example.
Agreed. Unfortunately there is a low correlation there.
In particular the Sendmail vacation(1) program autoresponds with out
> Can anyone give me pointers on how I could easily count the spam that is
> filtered by spam assassin.
> Whether I can write a small perl script, or do some shell scripting or
> anything to basically increment a text file counter by one for each spam
> which is filtered.
Assuming you are savi
Sometimes after spamassassin does its thing I can't read the message.
Pine reports the following error:
"Error: Formatting Error: non-hexadecimal character in QP encoding"
What does this mean and is there a fix for it??
Gerry
--
"The lyfe so short, the craft so long to learne" Chaucer
_
44 matches
Mail list logo
