Hello Matt,
On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 01:00:01PM -0500, Matt Yackley wrote:
>
> Today marks the first full year that SARE has been contributing custom rules
> to the
> SA community.
>
> Happy Birthday SARE!
>From where do you know this? There's no note about that on the SARE
website.
Jan
--
He did say what his mail average is:
"This is a small-scale family server receiving only about 250
emails a day."
You may want to read the entire message next time.
Thanks,
JamesDR
Loren Wilton wrote:
When the high LA hits, available RAM is essentially nil and the swap space
is about 85% used as we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Today marks the first full year that SARE has been contributing custom rules to
the
SA community.
Happy Birthday SARE!
Updated:
evilnumbers.cf
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm
Cheers,
matt
- -
SARE
On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 01:18:48PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually, now that I look, even my ham - this mailing list in particular -
> follow that format - you sure it isn't normal?
100%. Something in your stream is screwing up your headers.
> Received: from [63.240.76.165] (HELO scc
No typo.. there is indeed no space between the close-paren and "by."
Additionally, looking at some upstream headers on some of this spam I see the
same thing from other mailers:
Received: from p508d7ae3.dip.t-dialin.net (p508D7AE3.dip.t-dialin.net
[80.141.122.227])by myhost.mydomain.com (8.13.
SpamAssassin 3.0.1 running under IMail 8.13 (Windoze) is doing really great!
I've got about a 1% false negative rate, and way way less fp. Cool!
I know it's critical to sa-(re)learn any FP. I usually sa-learn the false
negatives, but sometimes I get lazy. Is that OK?
What I mean is, "Is autolearn
On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 12:53:31PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> debug: received-header: unknown format: from harmonypets.every1.net
> ([222.47.73.116])by myhost.mydomain.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id
> i9UBhAFh025756;Sat, 30 Oct 2004 07:43:12 -0400
>
> I looked at the parse_received_hea
I think it was Michael Parker (thanks) that gave me the tip that SA might not
be reading my headers right. I followed up on that and confirmed. I'm getting
the above debug message when I run a test on a specific single spam that made
it through. Here is my whole debug line showing the header
On Oct 30, 2004, at 8:04 AM, John Fleming wrote:
When the high LA hits, available RAM is essentially nil and the swap
space
is about 85% used as well. When I've seen it hit 12 or so, it seemed
that
the HDD activity would never stop, and I've manually killed
spamassassin and
any spamd's.
On my s
> When the high LA hits, available RAM is essentially nil and the swap space
> is about 85% used as well. When I've seen it hit 12 or so, it seemed that
> the HDD activity would never stop, and I've manually killed spamassassin
and
> any spamd's.
You don't say what your normal mail rate is, nor w
On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 11:24:30AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have a development idea. How about the tokens db storing not only the hash
> and frequency, but also the actual plaintext string. The string would only
> be used for database dumps and reports, while the hash would be used f
On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 10:04:36AM -0500, John Fleming wrote:
>
> This is on a recent Dell 400SC with 512 MB RAM and IDE drives. I suppose
> this might be a ridiculous question to some of you, but can you make an
> "experienced guess" as to whether the high load averages are due to my using
> net
I have a development idea. How about the tokens db storing not only the hash
and frequency, but also the actual plaintext string. The string would only be
used for database dumps and reports, while the hash would be used for the
actual matching and scoring.
I think this would give the best of
I've followed the "memory-hog" threads of late, but as a rather
inexperienced Linux person, some of it is over my head. I'm using SA v2.64
with network tests and bayes. Everything is fine except that several times
a day the server seems overwhelmed with load averages 4-12. Here is a minor
exampl
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, "Tuc at Beach House" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > The reason I joined was that I recently upgraded my FreeBSD box from 2.64
> > > to 3.0.1_1 (Not sure what about it makes it _1, but thats ok)
> > >
> > > As soon as I did, the amount of spam I started getting as
> > > goo
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:49:07 -0400 (EDT), "Tuc at Beach House"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > The reason I joined was that I recently upgraded my FreeBSD box from 2.64
> > to 3.0.1_1 (Not sure what about it makes it _1, but thats ok)
> >
> > As soon as I did, the amount of spam I star
16 matches
Mail list logo
