In the future, please be sure to CC the list as well, so it can get
dumped into the archives for future use.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 06:13:16PM -0500, Sunny Forro wrote:
> Michael,
> I am running it as root. I get the error every time I run
> SA-LEARN -D --SYNC, I don't get bayes checking wi
>I deleted the Mangled rule and instantly things improved 100%!
> Any ideas or thoughts on this?
We'd have to see the rule, but it probably contains something like ".*"
someplace.
Loren
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 04:50:57PM -0500, Sunny Forro wrote:
> debug: bayes: found bayes db version 2
> bayes: bayes db version 2 is not able to be used, aborting! at
> /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.4/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore/DBM.pm
> line 160.
Ok, yeah, this is just a warning, no error,
Michael,
Thanks for the reply. You're right, I neglected to include the
output from sa-learn -D --sync. Here it is:
Script started on Mon Jan 10 16:32:53 2005
email-host# sa-learn -D --sync
---SA-LEARN -D OUTPUT BEGIN-
debug: SpamAssassin versio
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 04:22:03PM -0500, Sunny Forro wrote:
> Help!
> I know this has got to be the number 1 question. But I haven't
> had any luck with it:
>
Actually, it doesn't happen that often these days.
> I'm getting:
> Bayes: bayes db version 2 is not able to be used, aborting!
>
thank you all...
i read this docs on the spamassaassin site..
i did set up a directory with the newly generated spam dbs and set up the
permissions but sa still lets through more or less the same amount of
spam. i'm not sure its working.
i was collecting unregistered spam sent to me for about 10
It's interesting how one process (of all started at the same time) is
using so much memory.
# ps aux | egrep '(spamd|USER)'
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
root 10437 0.0 3.4 92440 17896 ? S10:33 0:04 /usr/sbin/spamd
--max-children 5 -d --p
Help!
I know this has got to be the number 1 question. But I haven't
had any luck with it:
I'm getting:
Bayes: bayes db version 2 is not able to be used, aborting!
errors. I followed the instructions in UPGRADE, i.e. I shutdown all
running processes and verified there were no locks. Ran S
Dan Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Matt Kettler wrote:
With over 68% market share, and increasing. Clearly Apache is hurting badly.
Apache 2.0 and perl6 adoption is severely stunted because of major
backwards compat issues.
I'm sorry, I know this is getting OT but why do people keep bringin
At 11:01 AM 1/10/2005, MIKE YRABEDRA wrote:
This is a follow up to last weeks post. I found that one of my custom rules
was causing my server to bog down and process real slow.
It started again today, so I started deleting rules one-by-one to see what
happened.
I deleted the Mangled rule and instan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 11:06:22 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Over the past month I've seen a ~25% dropoff in the amount of spam we're
receiving on a daily basis. Anyone else seeing a significant drop in
spam recently?
(Replying to self)
The amount of spam we're rece
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> With over 68% market share, and increasing. Clearly Apache is hurting badly.
>
Apache 2.0 and perl6 adoption is severely stunted because of major
backwards compat issues.
> Once you go that route, you must ALWAYS go that route, for every change, or
I've got a low traffic mail server running Debian Woody with backports
for SA and Exim:
Exim: 4.34-7.amwoody.1 0
SA: 3.0.2-1
Perl: 5.6.1
Again, low traffic. I rotate daily, so:
$ wc -l /var/log/exim4/mainlog.1
2467 /var/log/exim4/mainlog.1
I just upgraded a few days ago to 3.0 f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:07:39PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > It's not tagged because there's no subject header to be tagged. This is a
> > bug in SA 3.0.0 and 3.0.1, but was fixed in SA 3.0.2.
>
> Just because it annoy
Hey Nate,
I would look at using Bayes. It is well worth the time to set it
up. Also, you may want to make sure that the dns tests are working. I
don't remember exactly how to do it. Try this spamassassin -D --lint
and then look for something pertaining to dns tests. Someone once
posted th
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 11:06:22 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Over the past month I've seen a ~25% dropoff in the amount of spam we're
> receiving on a daily basis. Anyone else seeing a significant drop in
> spam recently?
(Replying to self)
The amount of spam we're receiving did go back up a lit
Nate Davis wrote:
Howdy,
We are running SpamAssassin 3.0.2 called through QmailScanner. We are
not using Bayes, and are using systemwide settings. This Server,
receives the e-mail, and then scans it with SA, and then F-Prot, and
then using qmail (smtproutes) forwards the e-mail on to our inter
At 04:55 PM 1/8/2005, Fajar Priyanto wrote:
Thanks Matt,
So talking statistically, does it mean I have to train SA about 'ham' as many
as 'spam'? Right now, I train SA mostly on spams.
Ideally, yes.
( Personally, my understanding of statistics would say that real-world
ratios would be ideal, but D
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:07:39PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> It's not tagged because there's no subject header to be tagged. This is a
> bug in SA 3.0.0 and 3.0.1, but was fixed in SA 3.0.2.
>
> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3816
>
To be fair. This was not a bug, but a
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:07:39PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> It's not tagged because there's no subject header to be tagged. This is a
> bug in SA 3.0.0 and 3.0.1, but was fixed in SA 3.0.2.
Just because it annoys me -- this was not a bug. It worked exactly
as it was designed to. However, en
Howdy,
We are running SpamAssassin 3.0.2 called through QmailScanner. We are
not using Bayes, and are using systemwide settings. This Server,
receives the e-mail, and then scans it with SA, and then F-Prot, and
then using qmail (smtproutes) forwards the e-mail on to our internal
mail server.
At 10:50 AM 1/10/2005, Damien Kemens - Equinox Development wrote:
I seem to be having a problem that defies SA logic, so there
must be another variable Im not aware of. A message comes through our
network for Undisclosed Recipients. Here are the related headers:
>X-Spam-Checker-Vers
At 06:33 PM 1/7/2005, Dan Hollis wrote:
I guess it's just a difference in philosophy and attitude. On software
projects I code, I leave backwards compatibility in if possible. Most of
the time its very simple and never a kludge.
I think our difference is not in philosophy, but in scale. I'm thinkin
Loren Wilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on
01/07/2005 06:16:25 PM:
> Of course, when breaking old interfaces and adding new, the proper
> way (in the commercial software world, at least) is to have one
> release that supports both the old and new interfaces, so the users
> have a chance to chan
>-Original Message-
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 9:18 PM
>To: SpamAssassin Users
>Subject: Re: Implicit trust of surbl and sbl
>
>
>On Friday, January 7, 2005, 2:03:48 PM, William Stearns wrote:
>> I personally have trust in the surbl'
>-Original Message-
>From: MIKE YRABEDRA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:02 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Rule causing timeout
>
>
>
>
>This is a follow up to last weeks post. I found that one of my
>custom rules
>was causing my server to bo
This is a follow up to last weeks post. I found that one of my custom rules
was causing my server to bog down and process real slow.
It started again today, so I started deleting rules one-by-one to see what
happened.
I deleted the Mangled rule and instantly things improved 100%!
Any ideas or
Hi,
I
seem to be having a problem that defies SA logic, so there must be another
variable I’m not aware of. A message comes through our network for
Undisclosed Recipients. Here are the related headers:
>X-Spam-Checker-Version:
SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on eq-gw2.ly.ne
I will be sticking with 2.64 for a while as well.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 3:42 AM
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: maintaining the 2.6 branch
Another reason
I've been doing some testing ove the l
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:07:36 +
Martin Hepworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think he means..
>
> perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
Actually, both man and perldoc work for me. I build on Solaris, so it
may be different from what the op has.
Sorry if I confused things, but the questions loo
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:02:43 -0500 (EST)
"kalin mintchev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No manual entry for Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf ?!
>
> do i have to install this separetly or it comes together with
> Mail::SpamAssassin?
I suppose that depends on how and where you did the install. I create a
I think he means..
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
kalin mintchev wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:32:05 -0500 (EST)
"kalin mintchev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if spamd reads individual user-pref the bayes_path s
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:32:05 -0500 (EST)
> "kalin mintchev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> if spamd reads individual user-pref the bayes_path should be set up in
>> each individual file, correct? the local.cf would be ignored? right?
>> and if i use vpopmail the db files must have read permissi
Another reason
I've been doing some testing ove the last couple of days with 3.02 and
found it's scores are way lower on all test emails than 2.64. (anywhere
upto 33% lower in limited tests).
I've managed to get most of my 2.64 rules etc over (along with bayes),
but I'm nervous about switch
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:32:05 -0500 (EST)
"kalin mintchev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if spamd reads individual user-pref the bayes_path should be set up in
> each individual file, correct? the local.cf would be ignored? right?
> and if i use vpopmail the db files must have read permissions only
kalin mintchev wrote:
thanks Martin..
if spamd reads individual user-pref the bayes_path should be set up in
each individual file, correct? the local.cf would be ignored? right?
and if i use vpopmail the db files must have read permissions only for the
vpopmail user or group i assume...
also can
> thanks Martin..
> if spamd reads individual user-pref the bayes_path should be set up in
> each individual file, correct? the local.cf would be ignored? right?
> and if i use vpopmail the db files must have read permissions only for the
> vpopmail user or group i assume...
also can i merge the
Kalin
the local.cf settings will be overwritten by any user based settings.
yes the vpopmail user should have access in your case.
I'm not sure how SA will cope with virtual users in your case as I've
never set ip up like that. You might need to store the individual
settings in a SQL/LDAP DB and
thanks Martin...
> Kalin
> would be in ~root/.spamassassin/bayes_seen and bayes_toks in your case.
>
> You can set in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf with
>
> bayes_path /var/db/spamassassin
if spamd reads individual user-pref the bayes_path should be set up in
each individual file, correct? the
Hi everyone,
What is the meaning when i have recieved a valid email, but it is from
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards
Zaine
Kalin
would be in ~root/.spamassassin/bayes_seen and bayes_toks in your case.
You can set in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf with
bayes_path /var/db/spamassassin
(or where you want) and make sure the files are readable at least by all
the users.
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid
Hi All,
Still testing SA 3.0.2 and have now noticed that doing a bayes database
import uses in excess of 220MB of ram during processing, just on the first
phase of processing old_bayes_seen alone. The file size is only 20MB. Is
this normal ?
The test machine I'm trying the new version on only h
hi all..
i installed 3.0.2 on new machine. then fed sa-learn with spam and ham -
almost the same amounts. i saw the output - learning from x amount etc...
now i'm trying to find the byaes databases that the sa-learn generated.
nowhere to find.
on this machine every user has it's own user-pref con
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> I still havn't even considered looking at Apache 2.0 for example due to the
> major changes and the fact that things such as php weren't available for it
> for some time. (I hate to think what the issues with going to php 5 might be
> :)
The same issu
Thanks Rainer,
> > Well that certainly forced the use of /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf,
> > however now I get no mail filtering what so ever. Its like it
> doesn't know
> > about the rules files.
>
> You may run "spamassassin -D --siteconfigpath=/etc/mail/spamassassin <
> /dev/null 2>&1 | grep
45 matches
Mail list logo
