Re: server reached --max-clients setting

2006-01-20 Thread Matt Kettler
Frank Bures wrote: > Hi, > > I am running spamd with "-m 20" setting, yet I've seen multiple > entries like > these in the logs: > > spamd[3098]: prefork: server reached --max-clients setting, consider > raising > it > > What would be a good number for "-m" on a Quad Opteron server > processing som

Bit OT, help needed with a regex, please

2006-01-20 Thread Chris
I know this is a mite off topic for the list but I've not been able to get any help in other lists I've posted including the procmail one. I thought that as a last resort I'd ask here since SA uses regex's for its rules. I'll take it off list if someone would just offer some suggestions as to

RE: spam scores low (Sendmail + smtp-vilter + SA )

2006-01-20 Thread Mike Sassaman
> -Original Message- > From: David B Funk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:34 PM > To: Mike Sassaman > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: RE: spam scores low (Sendmail + smtp-vilter + SA ) > > > On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Mike Sassaman wrote: > > > Well,

RE: spam scores low (Sendmail + smtp-vilter + SA )

2006-01-20 Thread David B Funk
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Mike Sassaman wrote: > Well, I basically chose smtp-vilter because it was one of two milters in the > OpenBSD ports tree and therefore I figured it would be easiest to integrate. > I may have been wrong there... > > I contacted smtp-vilter's author and he said there was a know

RE: spam scores low (Sendmail + smtp-vilter + SA )

2006-01-20 Thread Mike Sassaman
> -Original Message- > From: David B Funk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:25 PM > To: Mike Sassaman > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: RE: spam scores low (Sendmail + smtp-vilter + SA ) > > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Mike Sassaman wrote: > > > >

Re: SA scoring not labeling spam as {Spam?}

2006-01-20 Thread Matt Kettler
jason lingnau wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2006, at 4:20 PM, Matt Kettler wrote: > >> jason lingnau wrote: >> >>> Hi yall! , >>> >>> Great time reading this list , thanks for all the submissions! >>> >>> SA version 2.83/razor2 >> >> >> Erm, check that version number.. there are no SA version between 2.

server reached --max-clients setting

2006-01-20 Thread Frank Bures
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I am running spamd with "-m 20" setting, yet I've seen multiple entries like these in the logs: spamd[3098]: prefork: server reached --max-clients setting, consider raising it What would be a good number for "-m" on a Quad Opteron server proce

Re: SA scoring not labeling spam as {Spam?}

2006-01-20 Thread jason lingnau
On Jan 18, 2006, at 4:20 PM, Matt Kettler wrote: jason lingnau wrote: Hi yall! , Great time reading this list , thanks for all the submissions! SA version 2.83/razor2 Erm, check that version number.. there are no SA version between 2.66 and 2.99. centOS machine running latest version

Re: Image-only stock spam -- nice try!

2006-01-20 Thread Kelson
I received a whole batch of these this morning -- with a different style of image! Instead of a rotated screenshot from a plain-text doc, these are screenshots of a fomatted pitch with bold, colors, etc. and a little bit of noise applied -- not enough to interfere with any OCR I've ever used,

Re: Exim 4.60 & SpamAssassin 3.1.0 Problems

2006-01-20 Thread Ronan
Loren Wilton wrote: > Does ANYONE have any ideas on what direction to take??! I can't specifically help with your problem, I don't use Exim and have never seein anything like this reported. However, if 3.0.5 will work for you that would certainly be a pretty gool alternative to 3.1.0 until w

Re: SPF test clarification

2006-01-20 Thread Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães
Jason Bertoch escreveu: It's my opinion that if an administrator misconfigured his SPF record, or a number of other things on their side, it is their fault that mail cannot be delivered. In the case of SPF_FAIL, they have explicitly told us they don't want mail to come from a server not l