Thanks All!
Now I've about 80MB for child
Andrea
Balzi Andrea wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>>
> [...]
>
>>> every child it occupies approximately 450MB of RAM.
>>>
>>> My server is a GNU/Linux Debian 3.1r2 with spamassassin v3.1.5 and
>>> Perl v5.8.4 Aren't it too many every 450MB for single child?
>>>
>> That is a bit exc
From: Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Friday, September 29, 2006, 3:59:03 PM
Subject: Non-blocklisted embedded URLs are getting hits on
URIBL_AB_SURBL and URIBL_PH_SURBL in SpamAssassin 3.1.5
===8<==Original message text===
On Thursday
On Thursday 28 September 2006 1:17 am, Donald Craig wrote:
> And Theo Van Dinter pointed out:
> You're not by chance using the opendns.{com,org} folks for DNS, are you?
>
> Of course. I'm an idiot. I switched to OpenDNS a couple of weeks back.
> Time to return from whence I came. Thank you,
> Do
On Friday, September 29, 2006, 12:32:08 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Balzi Andrea wrote:
>> BLACKLIST_URI
> You should use the ws.surbl.org version of this blacklist instead.
> See here for more info:
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SURBL
Though ws.surbl.org is the direct descendant of BLACK
I'm using Former AT&T Wireless / Cingular Blue. email goes to @mmode.com
gateway. I'm guessing but so far I'm seeing reliable messaging since I stopped
forging From:
Quoting "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Recently I've discovered that if I attempt to forg
Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) wrote:
Jon Trulson said:
Hehe, that is an old spammer trick... Our secondary MX is
pretty much 100% spam.
I implemented greylisting on the secondary which reduced spam
through it by about 99% :) The secondary does not do spam
scanning, it's simply store and forwar
Balzi Andrea wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> [...]
> > > every child it occupies approximately 450MB of RAM.
> > >
> > > My server is a GNU/Linux Debian 3.1r2 with spamassassin v3.1.5 and
> > > Perl v5.8.4 Aren't it too many every 450MB for single child?
> >
> > That is a bit excessive.
Has gocr .41 fixed the segfault problem patched in .40 by
http://antispam.imp.ch/patches/patch-gocr-segfault ?
If not is there an updated patch for .41?
thanks,
Russ
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 07:59:13PM +0200, Andreas Pettersson wrote:
Then why aren't they using one to block their own customers from
spamming the rest of the world?
While you can sell "we block spam from your inbox" to people as a reason to
pay you money, you can't sell
Philippe Couas wrote:
4 rpm -Uvh spamassassin-3.1.5-1.rh9.rf.i386.rpm
...
Where could i found theses perls optional packages, and how install
them ?
I see you're using the RPMForge packages (or possibly a subset like
FreshRPMs or DAG). If an RPMForge package has dependen
Comcast has their own blacklist, I do not know how they arrive at what
is spam and what is
not, in my experience, it is questionable. Your hosting company is the
one that is blacklisted.
This can be effecting many or just effecting you, it depends on whether
they assign individual
ip number to
Andreas Pettersson wrote:
Ken A wrote:
It looks like you are listed in spamcop and apparently Comcast is
either using spamcop or they have their own list that is blocking you.
Comcast themselves are using a spam filter?
(Let me taste that line one more time...)
Comcast themselves are usin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently I've discovered that if I attempt to forge the From: header in an
email
message that it ends up being considerably delayed when sent thru my providers
Email to SMS Gateway. I strongly suspect they have in place measures to
identify SPAM that will cause the messag
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 07:59:13PM +0200, Andreas Pettersson wrote:
> Then why aren't they using one to block their own customers from
> spamming the rest of the world?
While you can sell "we block spam from your inbox" to people as a reason to
pay you money, you can't sell "we stop you from send
Recently I've discovered that if I attempt to forge the From: header in an
email
message that it ends up being considerably delayed when sent thru my providers
Email to SMS Gateway. I strongly suspect they have in place measures to
identify SPAM that will cause the message to receive a much lower p
Ken A wrote:
It looks like you are listed in spamcop and apparently Comcast is
either using spamcop or they have their own list that is blocking you.
Comcast themselves are using a spam filter?
(Let me taste that line one more time...)
Comcast themselves are using a spam filter?
Then why aren
Jon Trulson said:
>Hehe, that is an old spammer trick... Our secondary MX is
>pretty much 100% spam.
>I implemented greylisting on the secondary which reduced spam
>through it by about 99% :) The secondary does not do spam
>scanning, it's simply store and forward. Greylisting really
>helps in the
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Rob McEwen wrote:
(CCing Marc Perkel because I seem to recall him knowing about this)
Not that I'd ever outright block based on this one factor alone, but...
Does anyone have any stats about what percentage of spam is directed towards
the highest MX Record? (that is, where
On 29-Sep-06, at 1:06 PM, Tom Myers wrote:
To whom it may concern.
I need your help. I run a legitimate business ( 27 years ) of
Search and Placement in the electronic industry. As you can see
for the text below I am unable to contact people about the jobs
that they want to interview
hi there --
I don't think SpamAssassin has anything to do with this --
the message you forwarded contained this error:
Connected to 206.18.177.26 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 550 66.235.211.53 blocked by
ldap:ou=rblmx,dc=comcast,dc=net -> BL004 Blocked for spam. Please see
It looks like you are listed in spamcop and apparently Comcast is either
using spamcop or they have their own list that is blocking you. You
really need to contact comcast about this, not the spamassassin list.
This list has nothing to do with your problem.
See:
http://spamcop.net/w3m?action=ch
To whom it may concern.
I need your help. I run a legitimate business ( 27 years ) of Search and
Placement in the electronic industry. As you can see for the text below I
am unable to contact people about the jobs that they want to interview for.
How do I get unlisted from the Spamassassi
>> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
>> FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=ham version=3.1.4
>> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) on amadeus3.local
>> X-Spam-Level:
>> DomainKey-Status: no
Bret Miller wrote:
I used to have problems with bayes locking and journaling. When it
finally corrupted the database, I decided it was time to put it into a
real SQL database instead of using DB_File. Haven't had a single problem
with bayes CPU or locking since.
Maybe it's time you consider usi
> -Original Message-
[...]
> > every child it occupies approximately 450MB of RAM.
> >
> > My server is a GNU/Linux Debian 3.1r2 with spamassassin v3.1.5 and
> > Perl v5.8.4 Aren't it too many every 450MB for single child?
>
> That is a bit excessive. My first guess is that you have WAY
Balzi Andrea wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've the problem with my spamassassin.
> I'm using spamassassin with exim (MTA) and clamav (AntiVirus).
> My spamassassin start with the follow command line:
>
> /usr/sbin/spamd --syslog=local4 --create-prefs --max-children 10
> --max-conn-per-child=100 --helper-home-
On 9/29/06, Olivier Nicole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think I have diabled the DNS and URI lookups and Razor/Pyzor/DCC,
> and it still takes around 1x seconds to scan one email, but we have a
> little power supply problem at this moment so I cannot check the
> configuration file, I'll check i
Hi
I've the problem with my spamassassin.
I'm using spamassassin with exim (MTA) and clamav (AntiVirus).
My spamassassin start with the follow command line:
/usr/sbin/spamd --syslog=local4 --create-prefs --max-children 10
--max-conn-per-child=100 --helper-home-dir -d
--pidfile=/var/run/spamd.pid
Ramprasad wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 08:12 -0400, Michel Vaillancourt wrote:
>> Ramprasad wrote:
>>> Why not SPF ??
>> Over two thirds of the email I receive that is UCE/Spam has an
>> "SPF_PASS" associated with it from SA. All SPF seems to do is make the
>> "stupid" spammers look more
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 08:12 -0400, Michel Vaillancourt wrote:
> Ramprasad wrote:
> >
> > Why not SPF ??
>
> Over two thirds of the email I receive that is UCE/Spam has an
> "SPF_PASS" associated with it from SA. All SPF seems to do is make the
> "stupid" spammers look more stupid. The c
Well I think the FAQ note is a good idea, since a hyperactive
DNS server wasn't the first thing I thought of when I saw
this problem. However, turning off the OpenDNS hyperactivity
does require a fixed IP address to originate the queries - I
found it easier to use OpenDNS for my desktops, and
Hi All,
With the great help of Michel Valliancourt I managed to solve my
bayesian problem. Solution, for the archives, is below
On 26-sep-2006, at 21:13, Peter Teunissen wrote:
After having trained SA with sufficient amounts of ham & spam, I
have bayesian testing working. When I test it
With regards to my post on Sept 8, I have not seen any responses. No
one else is having this issue with the .spamassassin folder not
always being created for a new user?
This bit of code is mixing up the unix username for the last message
filtered [for a pre-existing SA user] rather than the usern
Email Lists wrote:
> ->
> -> You can clear the AWL for a sender like this:
> ->
> -> spamassassin --remove-addr-from-whitelist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ->
> -> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is the sender)
> ->
> -> Make sure you do this as the user who is having the problem.
> ->
> -> > Thanks and kind regards
Ramprasad wrote:
>
> Why not SPF ??
Over two thirds of the email I receive that is UCE/Spam has an
"SPF_PASS" associated with it from SA. All SPF seems to do is make the
"stupid" spammers look more stupid. The clever ones aren't affected.
> DK is a resource HOG. And I cant do that ea
On Wednesday, September 27, 2006, 11:17:59 PM, Donald Craig wrote:
> And Theo Van Dinter pointed out:
> You're not by chance using the opendns.{com,org} folks for DNS, are you?
> Of course. I'm an idiot. I switched to OpenDNS a couple of weeks back.
> Time to return from whence I came. Thank yo
"Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SPF can be a pain for a number of reasons that have been discussed
> endlessly. I suspect Dirtlink found them to be effectively useless.
>
> Why not try using domainkeys instead?
SPF and domainkeys protect different things and therefore serve
differen
Henrik,
> My users ARE identifyied by either locally trusted IPS or pop-before-smtp,
> i.e. thery end up in mynetworks, but they are STILL verified by the
> incoming filter.. And I'm using your suggested setup very strictly..?!
> As far as I can see, the incoming milter(s) DOES get invoked for AL
On Saturday, September 2, 2006, 8:43:21 PM, Chris Chris wrote:
> On Saturday 02 September 2006 8:46 am, SM wrote:
>> At 20:22 01-09-2006, Chris wrote:
>> >I've been testing OpenDNS tonight vice using Earthlinks DNS nameservers.
>> >Looking at my hourly syslog snip, about half way through my NANAS r
> I think I have diabled the DNS and URI lookups and Razor/Pyzor/DCC,
> and it still takes around 1x seconds to scan one email, but we have a
> little power supply problem at this moment so I cannot check the
> configuration file, I'll check it later.
Are you using smapc/spamd or plain spamassassi
Greetings,
I think I have diabled the DNS and URI lookups and Razor/Pyzor/DCC,
and it still takes around 1x seconds to scan one email, but we have a
little power supply problem at this moment so I cannot check the
configuration file, I'll check it later.
I still think it may be caused by the UTF-
42 matches
Mail list logo
