Gary V wrote:
6 seconds seems somewhat typical. Mostly due to network tests. Some
RBLs are no longer and you could turn the non functional RBL rules off
by setting to 0. I'm not sure which ones though. Maybe someone else
knows.
From my own stats of hits against DNSBLs and URIBLs for the last
On 10/28/08, Ned Slider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luis Croker wrote:
> > Hi... I have done tests with 10 processes, 30, 50, 100 and the
> > results are the same... I have 4 Gb RAM and spamd is not running...
> > Regards.
> >
> You also need to make sure the maxproc column of the feed to ama
Luis Croker wrote:
Hi... I have done tests with 10 processes, 30, 50, 100 and the
results are the same... I have 4 Gb RAM and spamd is not running...
Regards.
You also need to make sure the maxproc column of the feed to amavisd in
/etc/postfix/master.cf matches whatever you've set
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Aren't you using redhat? There was some bugreprt about perl in redhat
causing slow processing..
I believe that issue was fixed with the update of perl last month.
Thank you, Rev. Mitleid.
It does appear that your MAIL service provider, capital.net, is indeed using
SpamAssassin, and that your message indicated below has been identified as spam
and blocked by capital.net. You should send that same data to your
representative at your ACCESS provider (ISP),
I have put the log level to 4 in amavisd.conf and this is one
operation... Everything is Ok in times... until SA is called and the
delay goes to 6 seconds... actually at the end of the log amavisd
displays a timing statistics and SA check spent 97% of the time...
Regards.
Oct 28 11:
I stand corrected. I guess I should have said that *I* don't use SpamAssassin
for outgoing email. :)
James Butler
Internet Society - Los Angeles Chapter
Chairman of the Board
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 10/28/08 at 12:32 PM Larry Nedry wrote:
>On 10/28/08 at 1
Hi guys..
I have read all your mails and I have decreased the number of procs to
10. the performance is better but continues slow.
The server is not using swap and I have no spamd running, this is
called from amavisd.
How many procs is the recommended for this server with 4 Gb
Let's not make a confusing situation any worse by piling on ridicule, please.
Clearly this isn't a SpamAssassin issue, as the user is not running a mail
server. Perhaps we could help them identify the source of their issue and then
turn them over to the appropriate support people?
Rev. Mitleid,
On 28.10.08 10:04, Luis Croker wrote:
>Hi... I have done tests with 10 processes, 30, 50, 100 and the
> results are the same... I have 4 Gb RAM and spamd is not running...
lower it back to 10 or so, unless you receive that much of mail.
> > Luis Croker wrote:
> > > Hi all...
> > >
> >
> > > btw one of last updates had to fix this problem. When did you
> > > sa-update last time?
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Nelson Serafica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > It's been a week. I'll be putting this on my crontab today probably every
> > 12am
On 28.10.08 21:05, Nelson Serafica wro
> On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 23:59 +0200, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
> > Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >
> > >> In my understanding, these are different concepts. In particular, RMX
> > >> doesn't hijack the TXT record, which is one of the major sins of SPF.
> >
> > > Yes, but they both were designed to
Luis Croker wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 11:01 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >
> > Luis Croker wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all...
> > >
> > > I continue with slow delivery in my mail server. Like I told
> > > you, the filters are working well, but the mail queue some times is
> > > big and sl
Hi... I have done tests with 10 processes, 30, 50, 100 and the
results are the same... I have 4 Gb RAM and spamd is not running...
Regards.
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 11:01 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Luis Croker wrote:
> > Hi all...
> >
> > I continue with slow delivery in my ma
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 09:34 -0600, Luis Croker wrote:
>
> Hi all...
>
> .
> smtp-amavis unix - - n - 100 smtp
> -o smtp_data_done_timeout=1200
> -o smtp_send_xforward_command=yes
> -o disable_dns_lookups=yes
>
> and I have the same number of procs for amavisd:
> $ma
Luis Croker wrote:
> Hi all...
>
> I continue with slow delivery in my mail server. Like I told you,
> the filters are working well, but the mail queue some times is big
> and slow.
>
> I have read http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/FasterPerformance
> and I did some chages to try
I have 4 CPUS and 4 Gigs of RAM. The server have just the mail
applications and is doing nothing else the CPUs are 100%
available.
About the spamd childs... The amavis-new calls the utilities of
spamassassin but i think it doesnt need the spamd deamon running...
just use it to get th
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Luis Croker wrote:
I continue with slow delivery in my mail server. Like I told you, the
filters are working well, but the mail queue some times is big and slow.
I have read http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/FasterPerformance
Have you checked to see whether your
Hi all...
I continue with slow delivery in my mail server. Like I told you,
the filters are working well, but the mail queue some times is big and
slow.
I have read http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/FasterPerformance
and I did some chages to try to get performance. This changes ar
> Corbie Wrote:
> 75% of my mail one on one to clients is getting blocked...I
> keep having to back-door mail through an online mail service
> which means I can't access items I need easily...please,
> please, how do I remove it? I didn't ask for it, I don't
> want it and my clients are f
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 21:05 +0800, Nelson Serafica wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Nelson Serafica
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > btw one of last updates had to fix this problem.
> When did you sa-update last
> > time?
>
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Nelson Serafica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > btw one of last updates had to fix this problem. When did you sa-update
>> last
>> > time?
>>
>
> It's been a week. I'll be putting this on my crontab today probably every
> 12am
>
I already put this on my crontab
> > btw one of last updates had to fix this problem. When did you sa-update
> last
> > time?
>
It's been a week. I'll be putting this on my crontab today probably every
12am
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Duane Hill wrote on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:09:02 + (UTC):
> Therefore, linux4michelle has no "real" control over SMTP level
> filtering.,
whatever, can we please have this off-topic discussion stopped? Thanks.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:54:56 -0400:
> and their tech people say it definitely is not.
And they are probably right! It's well-known that malicious supernatural
beings do try to sabotage followers of the Light. I suggest you untertake
a specialized house blessing for all e
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 23:59 +0200, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> >> In my understanding, these are different concepts. In particular, RMX
> >> doesn't hijack the TXT record, which is one of the major sins of SPF.
>
> > Yes, but they both were designed to do the same wo
On Monday, October 27, 2008, 4:54:56 PM, Rev. Corbie Mitleid wrote:
ccn> 75% of my mail one on one to clients is getting blocked...I keep
ccn> having to back-door mail through an online mail service which means I
ccn> can't access items I need easily...please, please, how do I remove
ccn> it?
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 17:54 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 75% of my mail one on one to clients is getting blocked...I keep
> having to back-door mail through an online mail service which means I
> can't access items I need easily...please, please, how do I remove
> it? I didn't ask fo
75% of my mail one on one to clients is getting blocked...I keep
having to back-door mail through an online mail service which means I
can't access items I need easily...please, please, how do I remove
it? I didn't ask for it, I don't want it and my clients are furious
at what looks li
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
In my understanding, these are different concepts. In particular, RMX
doesn't hijack the TXT record, which is one of the major sins of SPF.
Yes, but they both were designed to do the same work. SPF however can do
more. TXT was used because nothing else could, at
Benny Pedersen wrote:
[About CNAME MX records...]
rfc means 'request for comment'. and rfc's change as technology changes.
but not much in smtp have changed since first version deployed
The RFC in question (RFC2181) is about DNS, not SMTP.
Actually, in STD0010 and STD0013 (the standards d
Karsten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=E4ckelmann?= writes:
>
> > I was about to open a bugreport on this until I did a search for spamd
> > reports:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=spamd
>
> That's a rather broad comment plain-text search and includes totally
> unrela
On 28.10.08 11:01, Nelson Serafica wrote:
> I have setup qmail-scanner to quarantine and notify admin for any spam
> receive. I just notice that it tagged an email which was legitimate (false
> positive).
>
> As I check spamd.log, I saw
>
> AWL,FAKE_REPLY_C,FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK
> FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK
> My spamassassin version is 3.2.5. I go to
> /var/lib/spamassassin/3.002005/updates_spamassassin_org
> and edit 50_scores.cf and edit FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK and set
> it to 0.
>
> Is this the correct way to edit default rules or I have
> to put it on local.cf?
You should do the score in local.c
Per Jessen wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
>>> I was about to open a bugreport on this until I did a search for
>>> spamd reports:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=spamd
>>
>> That's a rather broad comment plain-text search and includes totally
>> unr
> If I've been following this thread correctly, linux4michelle has
already
> stated he/she receives messages from their ISP. Therefore, rejecting
at
> the SMTP level will ultimately cause the ISP to be a source of
> backscatter (i.e. not receiving messages directly), which he/she can
not
> reje
36 matches
Mail list logo
