Len Conrad schrieb:
FreeBSD 6.2
2 GHz
1 GB RAM
More RAM won't hurt
Amavisd-new
400 KB max msg size to scan
10 servers
TIMING shows sa-check taking 85% - 90%
How many concurrent processes have you set in your postfix's master.cf
to forward messages to? Your setting for the amavisd-vs
>Are you using your provider's DNS server?
no, BIND on the local machine, no forwarding.
As I mentioned, we are doing RBL check in a policy service also, so RBL checks
in SA will be answered from local cache.
Len
__
IMGate OpenSource Mail Firewal
>On 16/10/2008 8:57 PM, Len Conrad wrote:
>> FreeBSD 6.2
>> 2 GHz
>> 1 GB RAM
>
>> In business hours (08:00-17:00), traffic inbound is about 400 msgs/hour
>
>400 msgs/hr for a 2GHz processor shouldn't really even show up as
>noticible load.
glad to hear it.
>You haven't really said what in par
Are you using your provider's DNS server? I noticed that for many of my
clients, if I ran my own DNS server (that went out to root instead of
falling forward to ISP's DNS server), my scan times went DRASTICALLY
down. It is pretty trivial to set up a DNS server (don't do just
DNSmasq, or other sim
On 16/10/2008 8:57 PM, Len Conrad wrote:
> FreeBSD 6.2
> 2 GHz
> 1 GB RAM
> In business hours (08:00-17:00), traffic inbound is about 400 msgs/hour
400 msgs/hr for a 2GHz processor shouldn't really even show up as
noticible load.
You haven't really said what in particular is taking long or how
>
>Are you using shortcircuit?
no. I'll look into it
>Also you might graylisting with a very short retry time. That can
>reduce incoming spam 20+% or so.
We already run greylisting and envelope policies before amavis content-filter,
so our content-scanning is see only about 10% of the raw MX t
+1 for dropping this thread.
However, as a SpamAssassin Project Management Committee (PMC) member I
do feel a short statement about the policies of this list is needed here.
CC + post is the normal commonly accepted format for this list, and is
the manner in which most members of the SpamAssassin
Kris Deugau wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>> I just tested this, and it works perfectly on my system. I added this
>> line to my local.cf:
>>score URIBL_SC_SURBL (1.5)
>>
>> And that rule jumped from 0.5 to 2.0 in a test message.
>
> Yes, that works fine. What doesn't work is where the "sco
> -Original Message-
> From: Len Conrad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 October 2008 1:58 p.m.
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Any other tuning tricks or is this it?
>
>
> FreeBSD 6.2
> 2 GHz
> 1 GB RAM
>
> Amavisd-new
> 400 KB max msg size to scan
> 10 servers
> TIMI
FreeBSD 6.2
2 GHz
1 GB RAM
Amavisd-new
400 KB max msg size to scan
10 servers
TIMING shows sa-check taking 85% - 90%
spamassassin:
rulesets:
updates.spamassassin.org
saupdates.openprotect.com
sought.rules.yerp.org
We run sa-compile.
external checks: pyzor, razor, dcc
bayes uses Berkeley
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Eric Foster wrote:
i understand it works with a normal email : ) but the thing is, it
didn't work when the email body was an attachment : ) i'll send you the
original email tomorrow that made it's way through and you see if you
get it.
If the attachment was small it wou
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Unlike regular score lines for non-existent rules (which are kind of
ignored), the relative score adjustment depends on the rule to be
defined before.
Given your demo rule above,
Nominally live, actually. I've had perfectly legitimate staff email
hitting FORGED_MUA
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Eric Foster wrote:
hehe, yes indeed i'm putting the proper domain in : )
in fact here's the actual rule:
uri spam_domains_22
/contendosystems\.com\.ar|fincharacter\.net|efficientx\.info|
gr8rliving\.com|thebuysell\.com|hottomorrow\.com|vrolone\.com|
eastbayventure\.com|b
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 17:10 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Yes, that works fine. What doesn't work is where the "score RULE (adj)"
> entry is in a channel ruleset, and the original rule is in a different
> channel or the stock ruleset.
>
> At least, as of last time I tried that was the case. And
Matt Kettler wrote:
I just tested this, and it works perfectly on my system. I added this
line to my local.cf:
score URIBL_SC_SURBL (1.5)
And that rule jumped from 0.5 to 2.0 in a test message.
Yes, that works fine. What doesn't work is where the "score RULE (adj)"
entry is in a cha
Hi Martin,
At 15:01 14-10-2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on this page -> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ReportingSpam
is this link -> http://gtmp.org/pub/sa-postfix.en.html dead.
It's a Wiki. You can edit that page and remove the link.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CollaborativeMan
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 13:02 -0700, linuxbox wrote:
> are you saying that uri will work if the message is an attachment?
What attachment? The example you showed had multipart/alternative. The
only attachment was a small image.
> because i tried this:
>
> uri spam_domains_22 /baddomain\.com/i
>
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, linuxbox wrote:
because i tried this:
uri spam_domains_22 /baddomain\.com/i
score spam_domains_22 20
and that did not work...
That surely should work.
Silly question, forgive me, but... you _are_ putting your chosen evil
domain name in place of "baddomain" for testing
are you saying that uri will work if the message is an attachment?
because i tried this:
uri spam_domains_22 /baddomain\.com/i
score spam_domains_22 20
and that did not work.
McDonald, Dan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 08:02 -0700, linuxbox wrote:
>> Hello there.
mouss wrote:
ram a écrit :
I dont seem to get any updates from PSBL rsync site.
I have tried rsyncing from different servers by I get no results
The rsync server mentioned provides no updates at all
http://psbl.surriel.com/howto/
Is this the sign of yet another dead DNSBL ?
works fro
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Randy wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
How does the MTA block on a domain name _in the message body_ without
passing it to a filtering application?
Postfix can do this so my suggestion stands. Look for body_checks in
Postfix.
I wasn't aware postfix had that as a builtin. I
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, mouss wrote:
John Hardin a écrit :
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Randy wrote:
McDonald, Dan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 08:02 -0700, linuxbox wrote:
rawbody spam_domains /blockeddomain\.com/i
uri spam_domains /blockeddoamin\.com/i
If you need to block a domain from send
John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Randy wrote:
McDonald, Dan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 08:02 -0700, linuxbox wrote:
> rawbody spam_domains /blockeddomain\.com/i
uri spam_domains /blockeddoamin\.com/i
If you need to block a domain from sending e-mail, then use the mail
server to h
John Hardin a écrit :
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Randy wrote:
>
>> McDonald, Dan wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 08:02 -0700, linuxbox wrote:
>>>
>>> > rawbody spam_domains /blockeddomain\.com/i
>>>
>>> uri spam_domains /blockeddoamin\.com/i
>>
>> If you need to block a domain from sending e-mail,
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Randy wrote:
McDonald, Dan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 08:02 -0700, linuxbox wrote:
> rawbody spam_domains /blockeddomain\.com/i
uri spam_domains /blockeddoamin\.com/i
If you need to block a domain from sending e-mail, then use the mail
server to handle it. It is b
From: linuxbox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Hello there. I have a problem with blocking an email with spamassassin.
normally when i want to block a domain in an email, be it html or plain text
i would have a rule such as this, and this works p
McDonald, Dan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 08:02 -0700, linuxbox wrote:
Hello there. I have a problem with blocking an email with spamassassin.
normally when i want to block a domain in an email, be it html or plain text
i would have a rule such as this, and this works perfectly:
rawbody s
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 08:02 -0700, linuxbox wrote:
> Hello there. I have a problem with blocking an email with spamassassin.
> normally when i want to block a domain in an email, be it html or plain text
> i would have a rule such as this, and this works perfectly:
>
> rawbody spam_domains /bloc
On Thu, October 16, 2008 11:16, Justin Mason wrote:
> +1. This is not a useful topic for this forum. Please drop it.
drop sending cc when you olso post on maillist
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
ram a écrit :
> I dont seem to get any updates from PSBL rsync site.
> I have tried rsyncing from different servers by I get no results
>
> The rsync server mentioned provides no updates at all
>
> http://psbl.surriel.com/howto/
>
>
> Is this the sign of yet another dead DNSBL ?
>
works f
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 16. oktober 2008 15:22
>To: Rasmus Haslund
>Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: PSBL rsync server is Down ?
>
>PSBL is run by Rik Van Riel, not Al Iverson.
Thanks for pointing that out - I was not aware of that, but perha
Rasmus Haslund writes:
> >From: ram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: 16. oktober 2008 13:15
> >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> >Subject: PSBL rsync server is Down ?
> >
> >I dont seem to get any updates from PSBL rsync site.
> >I have tried rsyncing from different servers by I get no result
>From: ram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 16. oktober 2008 13:15
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: PSBL rsync server is Down ?
>
>I dont seem to get any updates from PSBL rsync site.
>I have tried rsyncing from different servers by I get no results
We are experiencing exactly the sa
I dont seem to get any updates from PSBL rsync site.
I have tried rsyncing from different servers by I get no results
The rsync server mentioned provides no updates at all
http://psbl.surriel.com/howto/
Is this the sign of yet another dead DNSBL ?
Thanks
Ram
Hey,
on this page -> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ReportingSpam
is this link -> http://gtmp.org/pub/sa-postfix.en.html dead.
Kind regards, Martin.
--
Lust auf Oldtimer? Dann --> http://www.oldtimerszene-brandenburg.de
Dort gibt es ein Register mit Händler- und Herstelleradressen, Clubs,
Hi all,
My mails are piped by postfix to maildrop which forwards the mail to
spamc. The relevant part of /etc/maildroprc is appended. Spamassassin
uses the "report_safe 1" option.
Now since I restarted my server, I've the following issue:
Many mails are scanned and handled as usual. When spamd sa
mouss writes:
> Benny Pedersen a écrit :
> > On Wed, October 15, 2008 17:03, mouss wrote:
> >> you'll find that knowledgeable members do Cc.
> > lies
>
> Don't trust my words. check the archives:
>
> - SA: Justin Mason, Matt Kettler, John Hardin, ...
> - postfix: Wietse (yes, the author of postf
Mark Martinec wrote:
> The updated patch is now attached to
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3364
> (replaces my previous two).
>
> In addition to previous tests, it now also resets corrupted AWL
> record when it sees one.
>
>> I don't know if it's an option but i could
38 matches
Mail list logo
