Hi;
I installed spamassassin 3.1.8 on freebsd 6.2 with qmail and qmail-scanner.
my machine is gateway for passing email to destination machine on my domains.
but I found following error in maillog:
spamd[27473]: spamd: handle_user unable to find user: [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Mar 12 02:17:57 spark sp
i think my spamassassin is performing no RBL checks, i disabled that
once, reset that change but it seems that the RBL are still not
working
Have you remove -L from the setup of SA?
some questions about sa-compile usage:
(1) how do we verify that the compiled rules are working? is a
'healthy' --lint sufficient?
(2) how do/should we meaure the improved (hopefully) performance due
to the compiled rules?
(3) do compiled rules automatically take precedence over uncompiled
rule
I think you misunderstand. the error message is entirely normal and not
indicative of a bug. it's produced when something (such as monitoring
software!) opens a TCP connection to the spamd port, then closes it again.
--j.
gable writes:
> we have monitoring in place .. zabbix in this case .. T
we have monitoring in place .. zabbix in this case .. The process isn't
dying, tailing the logs .. and checking processes .. the spamd process is up
and running ... but the connection between spamc and the daemon isn't
talking correctly A fellow sysadmi seems to think it's something to do
wi
that's the error message produced when the connection is closed
before any data is sent. Have you got an nmap running every 5
minutes? or some kind of keep-alive daemon checking to see if
spamd is running?
--j.
gable writes:
> gable wrote:
> >
> > Hiya
> >
> > Has anyone come across error lik
gable wrote:
>
> Hiya
>
> Has anyone come across error like these before - spamassassin was working
> perfect - but a couple of days ago - we got flooded with spam. Checking
> the logs ... errors like the one below come up 25,000 times :-) ... The
> only solution i've found to work is to keep
Hiya
Has anyone come across error like these before - spamassassin was working
perfect - but a couple of days ago - we got flooded with spam. Checking the
logs ... errors like the one below come up 25,000 times :-) ... The only
solution i've found to work is to keep restarting spamd on a crond ..
[Please Cc: me on reply, as I'm not subscribed to the list.]
Hello everyone!
I am using SA 3.1.7 from Debian testing packages. Some time ago
(possibly with the last or second last update), sa-learn stopped
to actually feed information into the database. I have been
running sa-learn from Cron for
On 3/10/07, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For some reason when this happens fetchmail will not delete the message after
downloading it therefore it just sits there and get downloaded over and over
again and prevents othere mail after it from being downloaded. Could this be
a) a fetchmail iss
I'm my email over from the services of fusemail.com to the IMAP server that
comes with my shared hosting account.
When I copy my messages over from the old server, do I just run SA-learn
against the messages as they are? Or will the fact that they have fusemail
headers in them cause SA to thin
Randal, Phil wrote:
You're going to get bounce blowback anyhow, whether you use SAV or not.
Using Recipient Address Validation (or any kind of reject at the gateway
level without first scanning for spam) would also increase blowback if
junk mail is being sent via relays.
No Address validation a
Mick wrote:
> Hello.
>
> This is driving me nuts. After installing DCC, Razor2 and Pyzor and
> then running:
>
I'm wondering why you're setting up 3.0.6 instead of something more modern.
>
> but there is no mention of PYZOR adding to the score whatsoever
> (unless it's "hidden" in DIGEST_MUTIPLE p
You're going to get bounce blowback anyhow, whether you use SAV or not.
Using Recipient Address Validation (or any kind of reject at the gateway
level without first scanning for spam) would also increase blowback if
junk mail is being sent via relays.
No Address validation at the gateway - this s
for what it's worth, I would suggest *not* adopting this
as an anti-spam technique.
Sender-address verification is _bad_ as an anti-spam technique, in my
opinion. Basically, there's one obvious response for spammers looking to
evade it -- use "real" sender addresses. Where's an easy place to fin
Matt Hampton wrote:
Wolfgang
what happens if I put one such thing on my mailserver too and want to
send you a mail?
My outgoing MX starts a smtp connection, and then, at RCPT TO, your
system
starts a smtp dialogue with my incoming MX. Unless the machines are
tightly coupled,
my incoming MX do
Bob Proulx wrote:
Sietse van Zanen wrote:
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Kelly Jones wrote:
To fight spam, I want to validate the address (not necessarily in
real-time) of the a given email sender. Is there a Unix tool that
does this?
Postfix has exactly this built in. It's the
"reject_unverified_se
Hello.
This is driving me nuts. After installing DCC, Razor2 and Pyzor and
then running:
spamassassin -D < sample-spam.txt
at the end of the test, I get:
debug:
tests=AWL,DCC_CHECK,DIGEST_MULTIPLE,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL,GTUBE,NO_RECEIVED,NO_RELAYS,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100,RAZOR2_CHECK
plus:
X
Wolfgang
what happens if I put one such thing on my mailserver too and want to send you
a mail?
My outgoing MX starts a smtp connection, and then, at RCPT TO, your system
starts a smtp dialogue with my incoming MX. Unless the machines are tightly
coupled,
my incoming MX does not expect to get
19 matches
Mail list logo
