Hence my comments on the OT thread earlier today about the BigEvil
author going mad one day... :)
> -Original Message-
> From: snowjack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 4:20 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: SA 3.0 is eating up all my memory
Marco van den Bovenkamp wrote:
I can add to this that it does work when you use spamassassin itself.
And the very first time after spamd startup. Feeding a message with a
whitelisted From: gave me this the first time (using 'spamc -y':
thor:~$ spamc -y < Trash.eml
DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FROM_RFC_BO
Loren Wilton wrote:
80M doesn't strike me as unusual for spamd if you have any of the addon
rulesets.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@#&sputter...! Yes, that is too unusual unless you're using
ALL the addon rulesets, including BigEvil, which, I hear, eats pets and
small children when nobody's looking, and sho
> I posted some graphs of my Mem and Swap utilization under 3.0 and 2.64 but
I didn't realize provide a legend. The green is memory/swap used and the
blue is free. You can see that under 3.0 (the first half of the graph)
about 1/2 of my swap was used and under 2.64, just a tiny fraction is used.
- Original Message -
From: "Brett Romero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I've tried this but still don't get the SPF results. Any other
suggestions?
>
> Does it only appear if the header info is non SPF? Or, when does it
appear?
No, the header and log entries will only appear if there is either
"Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-01 15:13]:
> > On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:56:01 -0600, Shane Hickey
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So, I take it that no one is seeing these weird spamd delays but
> > > me?
> Rats.
>
> Hum. Are you also perchance out of swap space as well as memory?
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:56:01 -0600, Shane Hickey
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, I take it that no one is seeing these weird spamd delays but me?
Rats.
Hum. Are you also perchance out of swap space as well as memory?
Loren
> Just a little update, this is what's going on over the server:
>
> 11:59am up 16:12, 1 user, load average: 10,51, 5,30, 2,47
> 151 processes: 144 sleeping, 6 running, 1 zombie, 0 stopped
> CPU states: 6,5% user, 2,1% system, 0,0% nice, 91,3% idle
> Mem: 449484K av, 76K used,5008
- Original Message -
From: "Raymond Dijkxhoorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Daniel Quinlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Real Magnet - Brett Romero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: SPF not working
Hi!
Naturally these scores are something you could alte
At 03:47 PM 10/1/2004, Carnegie, Martin wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.1 required=5.0
tests=FAKE_HELO_SHAW_CA,HTML_30_40,
HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG,MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no
version=2.63
Here's a question for you. How'd your copy of SA 2.63 end up with a score
of 4.1?
BigEvil.cf - it's one of the add-on rulesets available on the net, and one
that is notoriously huge, and thus a heavy consumer of memory. It's also
one Chris Santerre built, so jdow was giving Chris a bit of a ribbing there.
In any event, if you're using any add-on .cf files in
/etc/mail/spama
Hi!
Naturally these scores are something you could alter, and most likely you
should ;)
Sorry, that is bad advice. Do not do that.
1. Make sure you have the required modules as specified in the INSTALL
document (Net::DNS and Mail::SPF::Query)
You are right. I noticed they were added to the defau
>> Yes, I did install the module. How do I makes sure the scores are enabled
>> inside the local.cf file? What exactly am I looking for?
Raymond Dijkxhoorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well. Put something inside like:
>
> score SPF_PASS -0.974
> score SPF_FAIL 0 0.974 0 0.875
> score SPF_SO
Steve Bondy wrote:
Thanks.
I just found that the latest amavisd has a new config variable, $sa_spam_report_header which should do this.
Time to upgrade I guess.
Steve Bondy
Argh, you're right. I missed that new config option in doing my upgrade
from the older amavisd-new (20030613), that is e
Thanks.
I just found that the latest amavisd has a new config variable,
$sa_spam_report_header which should do this.
Time to upgrade I guess.
Steve Bondy
From: Ryan Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 10/1/2004 2:20 PM
To: Spamassassin-Users; Steve Bond
BigEvil what?
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:21:47 -0700, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BigEvil.
> {^_-}
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Something is seriously wrong with your setup! Move all cf files except
> > local.cf out of the
> > /etc/mail
At 04:11 PM 10/1/2004, List wrote:
I had just upgraded from 2.64 to 3.0. The first thing i notice is that
there are spamd child processes. I have 5 in total.
root 5691 0.0 1.3 30536 13604 ? SSep29 0:28 spamd child
root 5802 0.0 1.7 30260 17764 ? SSep29 0:29 s
- Original Message -
From: "Raymond Dijkxhoorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Real Magnet - Brett Romero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: SPF not working
Hi!
I'm using SA 3.0 on Win Server 2003. The SPF results never show up in
my reports. It do
I think I found an answer to this on my own. It seems as though when spamd
hits the SQL database, it starts ignoring whitelist_from entries in local.cf.
I noticed in the debug output that it also looks for "@GLOBAL" in the SQL
database, which I wasn't aware of.
so... I put an @GLOBAL whitelist_
BigEvil.
{^_-}
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Something is seriously wrong with your setup! Move all cf files except
> local.cf out of the
> /etc/mail/spamassassin dir and restart spamd. What does it read then?
>
> There is no way spamd should be that l
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Are there recommended values for these?
-Dan
Hi!
I'm using SA 3.0 on Win Server 2003. The SPF results never show up in
my reports. It does show up in the debug information. How do I get
the SPF info to show up in the reporting info?
Did you insta
"List" writes:
> Hi List,
>
> I had just upgraded from 2.64 to 3.0. The first thing i notice is that there
> are spamd child processes. I have 5 in total.
>
> root 5691 0.0 1.3 30536 13604 ? SSep29 0:28 spamd child
> root 5802 0.0 1.7 30260 17764 ? SSep29 0:
Hi!
I'm using SA 3.0 on Win Server 2003. The SPF results never show up in my
reports. It does show up in the debug information. How do I get the SPF
info to show up in the reporting info?
Did you install the needed perl module to do that, and did you also enable
the scores inside your local.
- Original Message -
From: "Raymond Dijkxhoorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Real Magnet - Brett Romero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: SPF not working
Hi!
I'm using SA 3.0 on Win Server 2003. The SPF results never show up in my
reports. It do
Hi!
I'm using SA 3.0 on Win Server 2003. The SPF results never show up in
my reports. It does show up in the debug information. How do I get the
SPF info to show up in the reporting info?
Did you install the needed perl module to do that, and did you also enable
the scores inside your local.c
Carnegie, Martin wrote:
Received: from [24.71.223.10] (helo=pd3mo2so.prod.shaw.ca)
by atcoinss.atco.ca with esmtp (Exim )
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
id 1C5AtN-0003nf-Tt; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:26:17 -0600
(This looks like the section FAKE_HELO_SHAW_CA is firing on.)
If I'm reading c
Hi List,
I had just upgraded from 2.64 to 3.0. The first thing i notice is that there
are spamd child processes. I have 5 in total.
root 5691 0.0 1.3 30536 13604 ? SSep29 0:28 spamd child
root 5802 0.0 1.7 30260 17764 ? SSep29 0:29 spamd child
root 5887
>So they're saying they can't be RFC compliant? The only thing I see
that
>might need to be fixed is: FAKE_HELO_SHAW_CA
>Other then that, it seems _they_ have some work to do.
>--Chris
Well they said that hopefully with the next version they would, but they
gave me no ETA (other than "it is co
> Matt wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I've got alot of mail that seems to be getting through spamassassin
> > and not being marked as spam and I'm not sure where to
> look. I have
> > my score at 5.0 which seems to be the lowest I can go
> without getting
> > too many false positives. However, alot of ma
I'm using SA 3.0 on Win Server 2003. The SPF
results never show up in my reports. It does show up in the debug
information. How do I get the SPF info to show up in the reporting
info?
Thanks,
Brett
Matt wrote:
Hi,
I've got alot of mail that seems to be getting through spamassassin
and not being marked as spam and I'm not sure where to look. I have
my score at 5.0 which seems to be the lowest I can go without getting
too many false positives. However, alot of mail comes through at
like 4.0
>-Original Message-
>From: Carnegie, Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 3:48 PM
>To: Spamassassin-Users
>Subject: [SA-List] IPlanet and SA
>
>
>We are currently seeing emails from external customers being marked as
>spam in SA when they come from an ISP calle
~Randy
* Don't read everything you believe.
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 12:35 PM
To: Randy Gibson; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Global Whitelist_from not working
At 01:29 PM 10/1/2004, Randy Gibson wrot
Hi,
I've got alot of mail that seems to be getting through spamassassin
and not being marked as spam and I'm not sure where to look. I have
my score at 5.0 which seems to be the lowest I can go without getting
too many false positives. However, alot of mail comes through at
like 4.0 or 4.5 and
I have a similar problem with whitelist_from entries in local.cf. --lint shows
no issues.
What's happening with me is that whitelist_from works for the first few hits,
then it stops working entirely.
the line in local.cf says "whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Running spamd in debug mode, I cau
We are currently seeing emails from external customers being marked as
spam in SA when they come from an ISP called Shaw. I have been talking
to their tech support about these emails as I think that this is all on
their end due to the format of the email. As a Shaw customer myself. I
sent an ema
Steve Bondy wrote:
I'd like to see the scores each rule is contributing in the headers
in X-Spam-Status, and I'd like to do it site wide, so I've added a
line to local.cf:
add_header all Status_YESNO hits=_HITS_ required=_REQD_
tests=_TESTSSCORES_ autolearn=_AUTOLEARN_
But all I get are the rule na
At 03:11 PM 10/1/2004, John Stegenga wrote:
My host just upgraded Spam Assassin from 2.64 to 3.0
So, I need to know all the local config file params (and any changes to
sa-learn) for 3.0 so I can update my scripts. how do you turn on Bayes,
etc.
On the web:
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.0.
Steve Bondy wrote:
I'd like to see the scores each rule is contributing in the headers
in X-Spam-Status, and I'd like to do it site wide, so I've added a
line to local.cf:
add_header all Status_YESNO hits=_HITS_ required=_REQD_
tests=_TESTSSCORES_ autolearn=_AUTOLEARN_
But all I get are the rule na
At 03:03 PM 10/1/2004, Steve Bondy wrote:
add_header all Status_YESNO hits=_HITS_ required=_REQD_
tests=_TESTSSCORES_ autolearn=_AUTOLEARN_
But all I get are the rule names, not the individual scores.
What am I doing wrong?
Did you try doing a "clear_headers" or "remove_header all Status" first t
I think as many of the changes for an upgrade between 2.6 and 3.0 should
be documented somewhere.
Not the upgrade document, because their are two many changes.
(eg, My bug on this issue got rejected.)
In the wiki somewhere, then.
David Brodbeck said:
> Lucas Albers wrote:
>
>>Some options kick yo
My host just upgraded Spam Assassin from 2.64 to 3.0
So, I need to know all the local config file params (and any changes to
sa-learn) for 3.0 so I can update my scripts. how do you turn on Bayes,
etc.
Please help folks!
John Stegenga
> I'd like to see the scores each rule is contributing in the headers in
(B> X-Spam-Status,
(B> and I'd like to do it site wide, so I've added a line to local.cf:
(B>
(B> add_header all Status_YESNO hits=_HITS_ required=_REQD_ tests=_TESTSSCORES_
(B> autolearn=_AUTOLEARN_
(B>
(B> But all I
I'd like to see the scores each rule is contributing in the headers in
X-Spam-Status, and I'd like to do it site wide, so I've added a line to
local.cf:
add_header all Status_YESNO hits=_HITS_ required=_REQD_ tests=_TESTSSCORES_
autolearn=_AUTOLEARN_
But all I get are the rule names, not the
Chris wrote...
> >> I told ya so - time to ban that fight where occasionally a
> >game breaks
> >> out.
> >
> >
> >I don't know ... I think maybe it's time to set up a DNSBL
> >that targets
> >people who malign the great lifestyle of hockey! HHBL
> (Hockey Hater's
> >Block List). I bet we c
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Chris Santerre wrote:
> I don't get his one at all!!! WTH???
>
> I'm CC'ing to SURBL because look at the MX for this domain!
>
> uniprepacademy.com dns_mx:
> neti-outblaze-com.mr.outblaze.com
> neti-outblaze-com-bk.mr.outblaze.com
>
> I know it didn't come form that domain,
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:43:04AM -0700, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
> Kurt Buff wrote:
>
> > I told ya so - time to ban that fight where occasionally a game breaks out.
> >
>
> *spews coffee all over PowerBook*
>
> ahahahaha
>
> That was the funniest thing I've read all morning. Thanks. hehe
Me
At 12:23 PM 10/1/2004, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
Additionally, I have to add that I still have one warning when I run
spamassassin --lint, and it seems to come from the standard ruleset:
warning: description for EXCUSE_ES_03 is over 50 chars
Ick. Bad form for a final release..
25_body_tests_es.cf:l
At 01:29 PM 10/1/2004, Randy Gibson wrote:
Since upgrading to SA3.0 user_prefs whitelist_from work
but not local.cf whitelist_from.
1) check for syntax errors.. run spamassassin --lint. If SA's parser gets
sufficiently confused it can dump a whole config file.
2) You sure you have the right local
At 01:27 PM 10/1/2004, Scott Taylor wrote:
This is the only line I can see that looks like might be a problem.
debug: diag: module not installed: Razor2::Client::Agent ('require' failed)
Only thing is: I can't find this module at CPAN. Closest thing I can find
is Mail-Audit-2.1 :(
That should be i
Chris Santerre wrote:
LOL, nah. I feel bad for people who don't like hockey. They have never
played. Never felt the pure unbridled aggression and fury of the game. Never
had a person pull back to take a slapshot right in front of then and had to
decide in a split second if you are man enough to div
>-Original Message-
>From: John Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 2:11 PM
>To: Kurt Buff
>Cc: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail); 'Chris Santerre'
>Subject: Re: [ot] NASCAR fans gonna be mad at me :)
>
>
>
>On Oct 1, 2004, at 10:32 AM, Kurt Buff wrote:
>
>> I told ya
On Oct 1, 2004, at 10:32 AM, Kurt Buff wrote:
I told ya so - time to ban that fight where occasionally a game breaks
out.
I don't know ... I think maybe it's time to set up a DNSBL that targets
people who malign the great lifestyle of hockey! HHBL (Hockey Hater's
Block List). I bet we could g
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:27:20AM -0700, Scott Taylor wrote:
> This is the only line I can see that looks like might be a problem.
> debug: diag: module not installed: Razor2::Client::Agent ('require' failed)
>
> Only thing is: I can't find this module at CPAN. Closest thing I can find
> is Mail
Ahhh,
Ya got the wrong one! There's another annoying
moron in that booth that needed to get dropped like a
rock so I can enjoy Talladega...
Why they ever let NBC do NASCAR instead of giving
FOX the whole season I dunno. But of course the guy
they're bringing up from the pits doe
Kurt Buff wrote:
I told ya so - time to ban that fight where occasionally a game breaks out.
*spews coffee all over PowerBook*
ahahahaha
That was the funniest thing I've read all morning. Thanks. hehe
Kurt Buff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/01/2004 12:32:53 PM:
> I told ya so - time to ban that fight where occasionally a game breaks
out.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 06:23
> > To: Spamassassin-Talk (E
I told ya so - time to ban that fight where occasionally a game breaks out.
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 06:23
> To: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
> Subject: [ot] NASCAR fans gonna be mad at me :)
>
>
> I, ummm. m
Since upgrading to SA3.0 user_prefs whitelist_from work
but not local.cf whitelist_from.
Help,
~Randy
* Don't read everything you believe.
Matt Kettler said:
> At 12:10 PM 10/1/2004, Scott Taylor wrote:
>> > Do you have DB_File installed
>>
>>appears not.
>>
>>Anything else I need to do with it?
>
> That should cover it. You can always run a spamassassin --lint -D and look
> at the debug output. It should tell you if SA is skipping v
Luis Hernán Otegui said:
> ok, the virus warning issues have been solved, but NOT the fact that I
> have 22 copies of spamd running at the same time, even when I´ve
> limited the number of max children of Sendmail to 20, and each copy of
> spamd weights 21 MB! How can I limit the amount of memory
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 12:29:40PM -0400, Jim Maul wrote:
> Scott Johnson wrote:
> >After upgrading to SA 3.0, I noticed a lot of spam with subject lines
> >including SEXUALLY- EXPLICIT started to get through, even though there
> >were existing rules that were meant specifically to catch them. I
At 12:10 PM 10/1/2004, Scott Taylor wrote:
> Do you have DB_File installed
appears not.
Anything else I need to do with it?
That should cover it. You can always run a spamassassin --lint -D and look
at the debug output. It should tell you if SA is skipping various optional
features due to lack of
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 08:58:48AM -0500, Mike Burger wrote:
>
> While I would never presume to suggest that you work with pre-release in a
> huge production environment, like at Panix, would it not have behooved
> someone, there, to run them in a test environment...even stage the upgrade
> to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Burger writes:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Ben Rosengart wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 06:40:18PM -0600, Lucas Albers wrote:
> > > Some options kick you in the face.
> > > Such as -a for spamd which will prevent it from starting.
> >
> > Ouch
I agree about the memory. But my problem also seemed to be that it was eating
a fair amount of swap. This is on a machine with 500M of ram. I finally gave
up and went back to 2.64.
Here's a link to some pngs that illustrate the symptoms.
http://www.howsyournetwork.com/mem-day.png
http://ww
Scott Johnson wrote:
After upgrading to SA 3.0, I noticed a lot of spam with subject lines
including SEXUALLY- EXPLICIT started to get through, even though there
were existing rules that were meant specifically to catch them. I first
boosted the score of the rules that catch these messages from
Kristopher Austin wrote:
I went ahead and clicked the link and it is apparently a redirect to a
redirect to a redirect before it finally lands at
http://www.wherechristiansmeet.com/index.php?affil=1529-CS0930F .
You know, I just remembered where I'd seen that name before:
http://cockeyed.com/citize
Yes, I'm running bayes and AWL, but it has been running all the way
from the very first releases which supported Bayes.
Anyway, here's my local.cf (trimmed) it also has a large number of
whitelist entries, since many many mails from yahoo get tagged as spam
because they send the email ususlly three
Okay, so I need to try this again. I'm STILL having problems getting
autolearning and sa-learn functioning. I suspect this is a PERL
installation issue, but can't quite figure
out WHY it's happening.
I'm running: FreeBSD, perl 5.8.2, SA3.0.0
When I did the CPAN installation of SA, I get NUMERO
In answer to Greg's question, 11 of the 13 show the following:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.8 required=6.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_99,
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.3 required=6.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50,
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 required=6.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50,
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3
After upgrading to SA 3.0, I noticed a lot of spam with subject lines
including SEXUALLY- EXPLICIT started to get through, even though there
were existing rules that were meant specifically to catch them. I first
boosted the score of the rules that catch these messages from 10 to 100
(2 rules,
Can you post your local.cf file? Maybe one of the rules has a typo that is
sending it to parts unknown. We've seen something like that before. Are you
running bayes and awl?
--Chris
>-Original Message-
>From: Luis Hernán Otegui [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 11:
Same thing here, except that it also eats as much memory as it can...
Scan times keep growing bigger and bigger in time...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:56:01 -0600, Shane Hickey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, I take it that no one is seeing these weird spamd delays but me? Rats.
>
> Shane Hickey <[
Matt Kettler said:
> At 11:15 AM 10/1/2004, Scott Taylor wrote:
>>I just installed SpammAssasin 3.0.0, on RHES3, after fixing the LANG as
>> it
>>still seems to have problems with utf-8. Anyhow, after reading about the
>>AutoWhitelist I looked and the directory /var/spool/spamassassin did not
>>e
I don't get his one at all!!! WTH???
I'm CC'ing to SURBL because look at the MX for this domain!
uniprepacademy.com dns_mx:
neti-outblaze-com.mr.outblaze.com
neti-outblaze-com-bk.mr.outblaze.com
I know it didn't come form that domain, but the advertised part of this
email points
At 11:15 AM 10/1/2004, Scott Taylor wrote:
I just installed SpammAssasin 3.0.0, on RHES3, after fixing the LANG as it
still seems to have problems with utf-8. Anyhow, after reading about the
AutoWhitelist I looked and the directory /var/spool/spamassassin did not
exist and I get autolearn=failed i
Oops! My mistake, wrong list indeed... Too much caffeine for today.
Thank you
"Eduardo Bejar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/01/2004 10:20:07 AM:
> Hi,
>
> What does this message means? On maillog:
>
> Oct 1 10:13:24 mail mailscanner[22924]: Either you've found a bug in
> MailScanner's F-Pr
ok, all I had in the /etc/mail/spamassassin dir was my local.cf and
the init.pre. I've cleaned the local.cf according to the list of
obsolete rules and directives, and still it is eating as much memory
as it can...
No idea why, the setup is the same as for another 4 production
servers, it started a
Hello,
I'm in the process of upgrading our servers from SA ver. 2.64 to 3.0.0.
Currently (with ver 2.64) we are using virtual-config=/var/spamassassin/
switch for spamd to have spamd use a custom .prefs file for each user.
So for example peter's .prefs file would be in
/var/spamassasin/peter.pre
"Eduardo Bejar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/01/2004 10:20:07 AM:
> Hi,
>
> What does this message means? On maillog:
>
> Oct 1 10:13:24 mail mailscanner[22924]: Either you've found a bug in
> MailScanner's F-Prot output parser, or F-Prot's output format has
changed!
> F-Prot said this "/v
Eduardo Bejar wrote:
Hi,
What does this message means? On maillog:
Oct 1 10:13:24 mail mailscanner[22924]: Either you've found a bug in
MailScanner's F-Prot output parser, or F-Prot's output format has changed!
F-Prot said this "/var/spool/MailScanner/incoming/i91FD3623161/Joke.cpl
W32/[EMAIL PROT
Hi,
What does this message means? On maillog:
Oct 1 10:13:24 mail mailscanner[22924]: Either you've found a bug in
MailScanner's F-Prot output parser, or F-Prot's output format has changed!
F-Prot said this "/var/spool/MailScanner/incoming/i91FD3623161/Joke.cpl
W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Please mai
Hi,
What does this message means? On maillog:
Oct 1 10:13:24 mail mailscanner[22924]: Either you've found a bug in
MailScanner's F-Prot output parser, or F-Prot's output format has changed!
F-Prot said this "/var/spool/MailScanner/incoming/i91FD3623161/Joke.cpl
W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Please mai
Tim Litwiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/30/2004 07:14:13 PM:
> I've been admiring the new logging that SA 3.* does and wondered if
> anyone has rewritten thier stats packages to take advantage of this yet.
> Especially the logging of the tests that hit.
>
> Also I haven't found yet whe
Hello,
I just installed SpammAssasin 3.0.0, on RHES3, after fixing the LANG as it
still seems to have problems with utf-8. Anyhow, after reading about the
AutoWhitelist I looked and the directory /var/spool/spamassassin did not
exist and I get autolearn=failed in my headers. Maybe something ha
Well, if there's no clear removal option, then the mailer is violating the
CAN-SPAM act. Now all you need is an ISP who wants to sue.. (or send a
cease-and-desist). :P
Maybe these sorts of spams will die off since they can be traced so
easily.
Ed, do all of the spams pass the ALL-TRUSTED test in
Something is seriously wrong with your setup! Move all cf files except
local.cf out of the
/etc/mail/spamassassin dir and restart spamd. What does it read then?
There is no way spamd should be that large!!
--Chris
>-Original Message-
>From: Luis Hernán Otegui [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Just a little update, this is what's going on over the server:
11:59am up 16:12, 1 user, load average: 10,51, 5,30, 2,47
151 processes: 144 sleeping, 6 running, 1 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 6,5% user, 2,1% system, 0,0% nice, 91,3% idle
Mem: 449484K av, 76K used,5008K free,
I went ahead and clicked the link and it is apparently a redirect to a
redirect to a redirect before it finally lands at
http://www.wherechristiansmeet.com/index.php?affil=1529-CS0930F .
I'm not sure what to do from there.
Kris
-Original Message-
From: Gregory Zornetzer [mailto:[EMAIL PR
Hi Ed,
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Ed Kasky wrote:
> I have had 13 FN's since upgrading to 3.0.0 on Sunday. This is a
> substantial increase from the one or two I used to get weekly.
>
> I have included the text of the most recent one below. They are all
> scoring betwee 3 and 4 and are all formatted p
Chris,
You wouldn't by chance be running the old bigevil ruleset would you. We
heard that the author went mad and the final product started ripping the
souls out of their systems...
Just a thought :)
Gary
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Fr
>-Original Message-
>From: Tim Litwiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 8:14 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: spamassassin stats from the new log file format
>
>
>I've been admiring the new logging that SA 3.* does and wondered if
>anyone has
>-Original Message-
>From: Nick Leverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 6:49 AM
>To: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
>Subject: Re: scan times up!
>
>
>On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 05:10:27PM -0400, Chris Santerre wrote:
>> Well...
>>
>> ver avg scan time
>> 2.4x 2.7 sec
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:33:20 -0700, jdow wrote
> I've been tempted more
> than a few times to brush off that knowledge a little and build as
> close to a facsimile tarpit as is possible. Alas, I just don't have
> time anymore.
These days, the most efficient way to do it would probably be to mod
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Ben Rosengart wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 06:40:18PM -0600, Lucas Albers wrote:
> > Some options kick you in the face.
> > Such as -a for spamd which will prevent it from starting.
>
> Ouch.
>
> Is the list of deprecated options and directives in the UPGRADE
> document
ok, the virus warning issues have been solved, but NOT the fact that I
have 22 copies of spamd running at the same time, even when I´ve
limited the number of max children of Sendmail to 20, and each copy of
spamd weights 21 MB! How can I limit the amount of memory spamd is
chewing?
On Thu, 30 Sep
Hi everybody, this is cross-posted to a few lists so you may get it more
than once, if so my appologies.
In the last 2 years since taking over a very much under-resourced mail
service that desperately needed upgrading, we at Loughborough University
have gone through massive changes to bring our em
I, ummm. might have had something to do with this :-)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6143324/
the short story:
We came down the boards and he was going full speed towards our goalie. I
poke checked him right before he got a shot off. I stopped, he lost his
footing and went full speed, feet fir
I have had 13 FN's since upgrading to 3.0.0 on Sunday. This is a
substantial increase from the one or two I used to get weekly.
I have included the text of the most recent one below. They are all
scoring betwee 3 and 4 and are all formatted pretty much like this one.
I am going to go through
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
