On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 12:45:26AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> allow_user_rules 1
> in my local.cf.
>
> However, when I edit .spamassassin/user_prefs in my home directory to add
> further whitelist_from commands, spamassassin doesn't see them. Is there
> any obvious reason why?
You don't
I'm running SpamAssassin version 3.1.8 on SuSE 9.3. Spamassassin is
invoked through amavisd.
I have a series of whitelist_from commands in my
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf, which spamassassin recognizes. I also have
allow_user_rules 1
in my local.cf.
However, when I edit .spamassassin/user_
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Loren Wilton wrote:
>Is [letters][numbers] a required format, or just what this spammer picked?
It's not required. It is the single most common format (that I've seen).
What's the "cute" trick? That looks like a pretty typical one.
(It's late-ish, I could be missing the obv
http://wyfaguxi76434.googlepages.com
Anyone know if there is a specific "top level" googlepages name format? Is
[letters][numbers] a required format, or just what this spammer picked?
Loren
The children were becoming un-responsive, one after the other, and were
not returning to process any more mail. Eventually this caused qmail to
reject smtp connections, as mail processing had come to a halt.
These processes were given the chance to "come right" after Saturday
evening and for half
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 11:02:23AM +1300, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
> Does anyone know how to fix a corrupted Bayes Database ?
Why do you think the DB is corrupt? All you said is that the children were
doing processing on the DB, which sounds a lot like an expire run.
--
Randomly Selected Tagli
Hi all,
Recently upgraded SA to 3.1.7 (the latest supported by Debian Sarge
backports.).
I just caught a nasty problem with our Bayes Database. Spamd children
were trying to use 99% CPU each (5 of them) and were hanging not doing
any processing. I discovered that there was in issue with our
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Loren Wilton wrote:
> I would not be terribly surprised to find out that on average
> there was no appreciable difference in running all rules of all
> types in priority order, over the current method;
Neither am I. Another thing to consider is the fraction of defined
rules t
Loren Wilton wrote:
Well, it looks like I need to spend some time reading the code to
study exactly how SA runs rules, and see if it's doing something that
pollutes the memory cache, which would cause the over-sorting to not
matter..
As best I recall, it runs rules by type, and sorted by prio
