Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Saturday, October 23, 2004 3:35 PM -0700 einheit
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Those sorts of "honor-system viruses" for unix are quite common, but
hardly ever work, up to now, since they require someone with both root
access to a unix system, and a lack of sophistication,
Am Mittwoch 20 Oktober 2004 04:46 schrieb Robert Menschel:
> Monday, October 18, 2004, 3:27:58 PM, Theo wrote:
>
> TVD> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:19:18AM +0200, Dietmar Lippold wrote:
> >> * Which tests (SYMBOLIC_TEST_NAMEs) are not used when I run
> >> spamassassin or spamd which option "-L"?
>
--On Saturday, October 23, 2004 3:35 PM -0700 einheit
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Those sorts of "honor-system viruses" for unix are quite common, but
hardly ever work, up to now, since they require someone with both root
access to a unix system, and a lack of sophistication, two qualities
which h
John Andersen wrote:
Instead of laughing at it, has anyone actually LOOKED at what
this would install on a redhat system?
Feel free - it's likely some rude hack to bypass tcp wrappers, and allow
ssh access from anywhere, or install some sort of innocuous-sounding
daemon which listens for passw
On Saturday 23 October 2004 09:43 am, einheit wrote:
> Pierre Thomson wrote:
> >SpamAssassin flagged this just now, and MailScanner removed it from the
> > stream. The main hits were DCC and RBL related.
> >
> >Good work, SA!
> >
> >http://frodo.bruderhof.com/redhat.txt
>
> Nice - SA detected bogos
On 10/23/2004 11:28 PM +0200, marti wrote:
I am running suse 8.1 just upgraded from 2.64 everything works bar the dnsbl
lookups, not had one positive result since upgrading.
Is there some other perl modules I need to upgrade? Other than the
perl-spamassassin-3.0.0-1.i586.rpm
Martin
Please don't hij
I am running suse 8.1 just upgraded from 2.64 everything works bar the dnsbl
lookups, not had one positive result since upgrading.
Is there some other perl modules I need to upgrade? Other than the
perl-spamassassin-3.0.0-1.i586.rpm
Martin
Second follow-up:
Please disregard my last post, this ended up being a directory access issue
(yes, user error). The original post under this subject heading is still
valid, though.
=
debug: rewrite_header: ignoring 5, not From, Subject, or To
debug: bayes: 9607 tie-ing to DB file R/O
/var/am
As a follow-up to my own post, since upgrading to SA 3.0.1, I am also
seeing:
=
debug: open of AWL file failed: lock: 6994 cannot create lockfile
/var/amavis/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist.mutex: Permission denied
debug: bayes: no dbs present, cannot tie DB R/O:
/var/amavis/.spamassassin/bayes_to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Thurman writes:
> On 10/20/04 8:40 AM, "Matt Kettler" wrote:
>
> > Mailscanner is inappropriately impatient with SpamAssassin. It's timeouts
> > were designed in the pre-bayes era, and are not designed to accommodate
> > bayes housekeeping chor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
BTW, SpamAssassin *is* CPU-intensive. It's designed that way ;)
- --j.
Tim B writes:
> email builder wrote:
> > I hurried out and installed 3.0.1, thinking one of those memory/language
> > improvements mentioned in the release notes were going to b
I have "bayes_auto_expire 0" in my local.cf and instead run
"sa-learn --force-expire" via an hourly cron job. With SA 3.0.0 I was see
the following results in my hourly cron results e-mails:
=
synced Bayes databases from journal in 3 seconds: 3677 unique entries (3714
total entries)
expired ol
Pierre Thomson wrote:
SpamAssassin flagged this just now, and MailScanner removed it from the stream. The main hits were DCC and RBL related.
Good work, SA!
http://frodo.bruderhof.com/redhat.txt
Nice - SA detected bogosity in this message, though differently than a
human would (If I had gott
Hi All,
If this is in a FAQ or in the history, please point me to it, ridicule me,
and go on about your day. :-)
We have a Linux server running Ensim. We had SpamAssassin 2.60. Upgraded to
2.64. Then we tried to upgrade to 3.0.0. SpamAssassin would not start. (I
did the Bayes sa-learn stuff in
On 10/20/04 8:40 AM, "Matt Kettler" wrote:
> Mailscanner is inappropriately impatient with SpamAssassin. It's timeouts
> were designed in the pre-bayes era, and are not designed to accommodate
> bayes housekeeping chores like expiry and journal syncs.
>
> In the short term, you can help by runnin
SpamAssassin flagged this just now, and MailScanner removed it from the stream.
The main hits were DCC and RBL related.
Good work, SA!
http://frodo.bruderhof.com/redhat.txt
I hope sysadmins are smart enough to check sources before applying an OS
patch!!!
Pierre Thomson
BIC
email builder wrote:
I hurried out and installed 3.0.1, thinking one of those memory/language
improvements mentioned in the release notes were going to be my savior...
Sadly, 3.0.1's spamd has the same CPU-intensive behavior here. I am s at
a loss; tried everything I've read... spent days read
On Saturday, October 23, 2004, 4:36:50 AM, Sven Ehret wrote:
> Hello List,
> I installaed a Postfix/SA Mailrelay for one of our clients and it's
> performing good, /except/, and this could be critical, there are no
> SBL, RBL, SURBL or similar checks made. This leads to inacceptable low
> scorings
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 01:31:20PM +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Justin Mason wrote on Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:09:10 -0700:
>
> > - excessive memory-usage fixes
> >
>
> installed on two machines, no problems so far. Memory usage of MailScanner
> is slightly higher after upgrade. I assume the memory-u
Hello List,
I installaed a Postfix/SA Mailrelay for one of our clients and it's
performing good, /except/, and this could be critical, there are no
SBL, RBL, SURBL or similar checks made. This leads to inacceptable low
scorings and could be a showstopper. What may I missing? I thought of
firewall
Justin Mason wrote on Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:09:10 -0700:
> - excessive memory-usage fixes
>
installed on two machines, no problems so far. Memory usage of MailScanner
is slightly higher after upgrade. I assume the memory-usage fixes were for
spamd, anyway?
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
At 12:40 PM 10/23/2004 +0200, Frank Tore Johansen wrote:
Hi, I have seen a handfull of these mails triggering FAKED_HOTMAIL_DAV,
which is kind of bad since it adds 3.9 in version 2.63.
The rule has been deleted from the 3.0 series due to FP problems.
Suggestion: zero out the rule until you can upg
Hi, I have seen a handfull of these mails triggering FAKED_HOTMAIL_DAV,
which is kind of bad since it adds 3.9 in version 2.63.
Here are the headers in question, and at the bottom comes the scores from
spamassassin.
-Frank.
---
Received: from listserv.brown.edu (canis.services.brown.edu [128.14
At 06:40 PM 10/22/2004 -0400, Asif Iqbal wrote:
@400041797c921b8ffdfc 2004-10-22 21:32:56 [13829] i: clean message
(1.6/5.0) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:7794 in 1.1 seconds, 1227 bytes.
@400041797c921b98ef0c 2004-10-22 21:32:56 [13829] i: result: . 1 -
BAYES_00,MSGID_DOLLARS,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 09:09:35PM -0800, John Andersen wrote:
> How long till the new version appears on CPAN?
It usually takes anywhere from 6-24 hours before new releases are distributed
out to the CPAN mirrors.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
I did this 'cause Linux gives me a woody. It does
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>Normal system load averages 0.15, with about 5 spamd processes running.
> >>Peak load varies, very occasionally going above 8, with around 30 spamd
> >>processes at once. This system has been processing about 20,000 messages
> >>per day lately.
> >
> >
> > Thank
Cpan said my SA was up to date, and spamassassin -V said
it was still 3.0.0.
How long till the new version appears on CPAN?
--
_
John Andersen
pgpfz2lxU6e7D.pgp
Description: signature
I hurried out and installed 3.0.1, thinking one of those memory/language
improvements mentioned in the release notes were going to be my savior...
Sadly, 3.0.1's spamd has the same CPU-intensive behavior here. I am s at
a loss; tried everything I've read... spent days reading... please, anyon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
SpamAssassin 3.0.1 is released! 3.0.1 contains some important
bugfixes, and is recommended.
Highlights:
- excessive memory-usage fixes
- bug fixed which stopped DCC, Pyzor working with amavisd
- deprecate RCVD_IN_RFC_IPWHOIS
- user_prefs we
> What in the world is going on? Isn't it true that spamd (beside DCC) does
> its thing w/out disk I/O? If so, what else could be chewing up so much
CPU?
I don't know - The same thing happens to me a couple of times a day, and I
only get about 350 messages per day. Today it was at 12:25p:
11:3
> >>Normal system load averages 0.15, with about 5 spamd processes running.
> >>Peak load varies, very occasionally going above 8, with around 30 spamd
> >>processes at once. This system has been processing about 20,000 messages
> >>per day lately.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the good info. I'm glad
31 matches
Mail list logo
