On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 10:55:33AM +1200, Simon Lyall wrote:
>
> Just a query about what sort of throughput people are seeing on their
> machines in emails/second?
While playing with a bridge configuration I 1) accidentally reported
a bug to freebsd-net on a test machines and then 2) orphaned th
»Alexander Skwar« sagte am 2002-05-09 um 20:53:06 + :
> > Aside from that, are you sure that even without SA in the picture you
>
> Yes, I am. But I'll double check.
I've now disabled SA and I'm not seeing corruption. So it's the fault
of SA, or maybe the fault of a bad setup.
Alexander S
I (apparently) received this from spamc:
(not reformatted by my mail client)
- Forwarded message -
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=9.4 required=7.0
tests=X_EM_VER_PRESENT,NO_REAL_NAME,CTYPE_JUST_HTML,KNOWN_BAD_DIALUPS,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM,RCVD_IN_VADUL
version=2.20
X-Spam-Flag
I believe I've asked this before, but it's biting me too often and I haven't
yet found an answer to this:
Let's take the following (complete) Received headers:
Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.49]:34177
helo=scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net)
This message was _not_ flagged by SA. Who would want to send it
anyways? (all intact except for the Received: headers)
-D
- Forwarded message from Investor Relations <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
| Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 00:33:33 +
| From: Investor Relations <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| To: [EM
Greetings!
Forgive this newbie question if it's been posted already or
documented, but I can seem to find the answer. We are getting
slammed with spam lately, and I had to set this up in a hurry.
I have set up SA with procmail (testing on only a few accounts
for now) and am pretty pleased with t
Hi,
today I searched the list for a special problem.
I'm using spamassassin 2.20 on linux / sendmail 8.12.3,
sitewide with spamass-milter (0.1.1).
Nearly everytime, spamc contacts spamd, I get a logline
... spamd[]: bad protocol: header error: (closed before headers)
I also use milter-ama
Hello,
Here is a small patch to spamproxyd. (current cvs version)
(i joined the patched spamproxyd as well, as it is small enought)
I changed spamproxyd
- to correct a call to split which was removing trailing empty lines
( which could induce message with no body, thus bouncing the
Hi Kevin G. J. Freels, you wrote:
> What I'd like to do is set up a rule so that a) I can not
> "double-flag" spam, i.e., don't put " SPAM " in the
> Subject twice or more, and b) if it sees "[RT #" to down-weight
> of the message.
>
> So how do I do this?
You can use 'rewrite_subject 0
Craig R Hughes wrote:
> purpose, here's a list of the current (CVS) top 20 most expensive rules
> computationally:
I was just looking at some of my rule changes and noticed I never
thought about using the non-greedy quantifiers like {n,m}?.
In the rule set for SA 2.20 I found only 3 rules (ASCII
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Klaus Heinz wrote:
> Hi Kevin G. J. Freels, you wrote:
>
> > What I'd like to do is set up a rule so that a) I can not
> > "double-flag" spam, i.e., don't put " SPAM " in the
> > Subject twice or more
> >
> > So how do I do this?
>
> You can use 'rewrite_subject 0'
At 06:33 PM 5/10/02 +0200, Klaus Heinz wrote:
>Craig R Hughes wrote:
>
>> purpose, here's a list of the current (CVS) top 20 most expensive rules
>> computationally:
>
>I was just looking at some of my rule changes and noticed I never
>thought about using the non-greedy quantifiers like {n,m}?.
>I
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 08:53:06PM +, Alexander Skwar wrote:
| »Sidney Markowitz« sagte am 2002-05-09 um 11:57:45 -0700 :
| > Ok, let's try again without the corruption. It appears you missed the
| > later line in which I said how to fix the problem, so I'll start with
| > that:
|
| Thanks!
|
Folks:
Anyone know if it's possible to cause SA to treat spam with a really high
spam score differently?
I'd like to be able to configure a maximum spam score, which would cause
SA to flag the message specially or just file it in a different mailbox.
Thanks!
david
___
Note that spamd is CPU bound, where just about all the other processes there are
IO bound, either to disk or network. Does running spamd actually slow down the
other processes? That's a different question from asking whether it's taking
CPU time...
C
Morbus Iff wrote:
MI> Just as an example o
Bart Schaefer wrote:
BS> What, so now all Bcc's are spam?
Nope, just a sign of spam. That's the beauty of weighted scoring.
BS> I don't think the GA can possibly give a valid score to such a rule. How
BS> can you have any confidence that there's a representative number of Bcc'd
BS> messages i
Time to add this to the FAQ I suppose.
C
Vaughn Skinner wrote:
VS> I'm using SpamAssassin 2.20. I'm using MailScanner and get a few dozen of
VS> these each day. Has anyone seem the following message? Any fixes? I didn't
VS> see any comments in the list archives.
VS>
VS> Malformed UTF-8 char
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 01:36:14PM -0500, David Gibbs wrote:
| Folks:
|
| Anyone know if it's possible to cause SA to treat spam with a really high
| spam score differently?
| I'd like to be able to configure a maximum spam score, which would cause
| SA to flag the message specially or just file
At 01:36 PM 5/10/2002 -0500, David Gibbs wrote:
>Anyone know if it's possible to cause SA to treat spam with a really high
>spam score differently?
>I'd like to be able to configure a maximum spam score, which would cause
>SA to flag the message specially or just file it in a different mailbox.
>T
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> If you are a person who regularly sends all your correspondence
That would be "... regularly *receives* ...", wouldn't it? Which is not
something over which I necessarily have all that much control ... if I
did, I wouldn't need SA :-).
> using the B
Hi.
I recently received this email and though it claims to have 6.5 hits and my
threshold was 6.0, it didn't tag it. Which was a good thing since it wasn't
spam but I was just curious why it didn't tag it.
Thanks.
---snip---
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on mail.desig
On Fri, 2002-05-10 at 16:15, Henry Kwan wrote:
> I was just curious why it didn't tag it.
[...]
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=6.0
Perhaps because -6.5 really is less than +6.0?
-- sidney
___
Have big pipes? SourceForge.
Hi,
I want to use spamassassin on a system where real heavy load exists. I have
540,000 incoming emails daily.
I know spamc/spamd do well under moderate load , but this is not enough.
Did anybody think of rewriting spammassasin in C , and may be use a high
performance threading library like pth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Said Henry Kwan on Fri, May 10, 2002 at 04:15:55PM -0700:
> I recently received this email and though it claims to have 6.5 hits
> and my threshold was 6.0, it didn't tag it. Which was a good thing
> since it wasn't spam but I was just curious why i
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
[...]
>> using the Bcc field instead of To or CC then you'll want to manually
>> adjust the score the GA assigns. But you might also want to
>> re-evaluate your email practices -- do you *really* need those
>>
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Henry Kwan wrote:
> I recently received this email and though it claims to have 6.5 hits
> and my threshold was 6.0, it didn't tag it. Which was a good thing
> since it wasn't spam but I was just curious why it didn't tag it.
It claimed to have "-6.5" hits -- *below* zero. :)
On Sat, 11 May 2002, Mail Admin wrote:
> Hi, I want to use spamassassin on a system where real heavy load
> exists. I have 540,000 incoming emails daily. I know spamc/spamd do
> well under moderate load , but this is not enough. Did anybody think
> of rewriting spammassasin in C,
Yup. It's been s
27 matches
Mail list logo
