Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> John Andersen wrote:
>> This time of year its important to make sure your users get their
>> tax e-filing confirmation emails. Perhaps something like this would
>> be appropriate for Turbo-Tax users
>>
>> spamassassin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Massive whitelisting via AWL d
Julian Yap wrote:
> I've tried doing some tests in debugging mode. How do you record
> timings for the SA parts in debugging mode?
>
This may offer an idea:
http://marc.info/?l=amavis-user&m=116108763611148
Gary V
_
i'm making a
John Andersen wrote:
This time of year its important to make sure your users get their
tax e-filing confirmation emails.
Perhaps something like this would be appropriate for Turbo-Tax users
spamassassin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Massive whitelisting via AWL doesn't seem like a great idea to me,
es
This time of year its important to make sure your users get their
tax e-filing confirmation emails.
Perhaps something like this would be appropriate for Turbo-Tax users
spamassassin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Same is true for other Tax Software packages. I'm sure other
countries have similar packages a
Marc Perkel wrote:
> Trying to set up spamc/spamd learning. Have a dedicated spamd server
> that is fed from several MTA machines running exim. On the exim side
> I'm piping messages into spamc as follows:
>
> unseen pipe "/etc/exim/scripts/learn-spam"
>
> The learn-spam script looks like this:
>
>
Julian Yap wrote:
> I'm finding that using FreeBSD 6.2 (64-bit kernel) is having much
> faster scan times then any GNU/Linux system I've run.
>
For such a large difference (0.4 vs 10) it has to be DNS related.
I'll take a stab: ipv6. If you have ipv6 enabled, Linux will attempt to
do ipv6 DNS look
On Monday 26 March 2007 06:34, Julian Yap wrote:
> On 3/25/07, Daniel O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One thing I would check is to make sure your malloc options are sensible.
> >
> > I have seen Perl benchmarks where subtle malloc options can have a huge
> > neg/pos impact on performance.
> What exactly do you mean by 'local loopback address'? I'm pretty sure I
> know what you're talking about, but I wanted to make sure I understood
> you correctly.
somehost:/var/log/spamassassin# ifconfig -a
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr ***
inet addr:10.5.5.5 Bcast:*** Mask:25
Matthew Wilson wrote:
> Hmm. Maybe it is indeed a result of the additional local loopback address
> required for the IP load-balancers. I'm asking around various places if
> that's a supported situation.
What exactly do you mean by 'local loopback address'? I'm pretty sure I
know what you're ta
On 3/25/07, Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Julian Yap wrote:
> I've tried doing some tests in debugging mode. How do you record
> timings for the SA parts in debugging mode?
>
I think spamd -D.
Hmm, I don't recall seeing timings. I might be wrong or it could be
the first column.
> I'm still seeing the same error happen even after making that change in
> /etc/hosts.
>
> If what you're saying above is true, then why am I am I only seeing
> these errors when there's a spike of incoming email. I'm graphing the
> number of mails coming in and every time I see these errors ther
Julian Yap wrote:
Are you using pyzor,razor or dcc?
Razor and DCC. I should try disabling both of these.
I don't think you need to, but if you like 2 second emails ;-) set the
timeouts to 1 second or less .
(i think default is 5 seconds each)
I've tried doing some tests in debugging mode
On 3/25/07, Daniel O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One thing I would check is to make sure your malloc options are sensible.
I have seen Perl benchmarks where subtle malloc options can have a huge
neg/pos impact on performance.
I'll need to look into this. Malloc options are Kernel level,
On 3/25/07, Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Julian Yap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 2:58 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Spamassassin scanning slower on Linux compared to FreeBS
Matthew Wilson wrote:
>> I had tried that as well, to no avail. I suspect that in our setup,
>> the
>> tcpcheck
>> from LVS/keepalived was closing the connection so quickly after
>> discovering
>> that
>> the port was open, the socket was closed even before ->peername was
>> called.
>>
>> -Matthew
I am getting a lot of these. We use pretty much all the rules at rules
emporium, but nothing over 0 level, as well as do our sa-update (which
doesn't seem to have updated since Feb 24?, maybe the problem?). I also
use the KAM.cf file and FuzzyOcr. I even tried disabling bayes afer this
weeks di
> I had tried that as well, to no avail. I suspect that in our setup,
> the
> tcpcheck
> from LVS/keepalived was closing the connection so quickly after
> discovering
> that
> the port was open, the socket was closed even before ->peername was
> called.
>
> -Matthew
Yep, by the time the LVS' tcp
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Fix the ALL_TRUSTED hit. I also don't see any network-rule hits, so
> if you're not using those you should be. Also look at using
> sa-update if you aren't.
Thanks for pointing them out -- I'll look into them immediately. I
have sa-update running v
> > I was getting identical Socket.pm errors. See
> > http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5388 for my
> diagnosis.
> > Let me know if you'd like me to explain further.
>
> Aha!
>
> We have a similar setup here with the BigIP having two addresses on the
> machine (a machine ip a
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 10:09:54AM -0400, Joe Casadonte wrote:
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_99,
> DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=3.1.3
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_99,
> FROM_EXCE
One last reminder for students.
The Google Summer of Code application deadline has been extended to
March 26th 5pm PDT.
Get your proposals/applications in NOW if you would like to participate.
$4500 could be yours as well as an opportunity to work on SpamAssassin
this summer.
Here is the Apache
Matthew Wilson wrote:
>> Ya, that was my last resort, but I'd rather avoid it if I could. I'll
>> post back with my results if I do see an improvement.
>
> Lance-
>
> I was getting identical Socket.pm errors. See
> http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5388 for my diagnosis.
> Le
I am using per-user Bayes DBs, and I'm not sure what good it's doing
me. I initiated the DB with good and bad messages, and throw any
false-positives and false-negatives through sa-learn. I've also taken
to feeding any spam through sa-learn, too, because I thought I
remembered reading that this w
Mail transport agent - sendmail
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Jon Armitage wrote:
-Original Message-
From: sushma [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21 March 2007 23:09
The mail tagged as spam in relay server, will be send to
local host to one account(i.e [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
can i do something
On Sunday 25 March 2007 21:07, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> My assumptions are that Linux should be better/faster at disk access
> (which includes spooling email, mime defang, virus scan, and sql access)
Uhh why?
> My other assumptions are that FBSD network drivers are faster, but in a
> heavy emai
> -Original Message-
> From: Julian Yap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 2:58 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Spamassassin scanning slower on Linux compared to FreeBSD
>
>
> I have common hardware being Dual AMD64 CPU's wi
26 matches
Mail list logo
