RobertH wrote:
matt,
wouldnt deleting the ~./spamassassin folder also delete the bayes data in
many circumstances?
Yes this would - this was purely for testing purposes - as Justin said
in a previous email some information is cached in that folder so I
deleted it to make sure that it was
> From: Matt
>
> Using a slightly different method - using a maximum number of
> children parser. The times were taken after deleting the
> ~/.spamassassin folder before each run.
>
> Before
>
> real21m24.068s
> user18m58.465s
> sys 0m45.532s
>
> After using 4 children
>
>
On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 15:52 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
> At 03:48 PM 4/16/2009, an anonymous Nabble user wrote:
> > How to force SpamAssassin to filter messages on the subject?
> > Much of the spam to me is in the subject: 100%, %%%
>
> Spamassassin doesn't 'filter'.
While that's certainly true an
At 04:41 PM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
Please don't reference the old comcast.net documents. They're quite
out-of-date and I've not been in control of that account for a few years
now.
The above text has become part of the wiki:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WritingRules
My bad... I did a go
Evan Platt wrote:
> At 03:48 PM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
>> Hello,
>> How to force SpamAssassin to filter messages on the subject?
>>
>> Much of the spam to me is in the subject: 100%, %%%
>
> Spamassassin doesn't 'filter'.
>
> You can probably do something in your MTA to 'filter' messages based
> on
At 03:48 PM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
Hello,
How to force SpamAssassin to filter messages on the subject?
Much of the spam to me is in the subject: 100%, %%%
Spamassassin doesn't 'filter'.
You can probably do something in your MTA to 'filter' messages based
on subject - ie procmail, if you're lo
Hello,
How to force SpamAssassin to filter messages on the subject?
Much of the spam to me is in the subject: 100%, %%%
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/locking-topic-tp23088025p23088025.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
System: Fedora 10, Spamassassin 3.2.5, Perl 5.10.0
The following error is preceded by log entry:
spamc[PID]: skipped message, greater than max message size (512000 bytes)
Error: spamc[PID]: oops! message_dump of 8192 returned different
(there are as many of those errors as it takes to reach the f
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Wonder why that is -- due to the excessively long metas? The sub-rules'
REs are quite trivial.
Would constructing it using a binary (or n-ary, with small upper bound
of n) tree speed the compilation up?
Using a slightly different method - using a maximum number of
On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 13:58 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
>
> It will take a few days for me to get the 'flow' of this list, and the
> sense of any threads already in progress. So I apologize if my query
> has been recently discussed/resolved. Do we have a searchable archive
> somewhere on the we
for those in the know re the programming and speed of processing using
sa-compile...
it appears the fules compile fast without the sought ruleset applied.
and time to compile increases by roughly (very rough) a factor of 10 with
sought ruleset applied.
is that time extra time spent strictly in
Greetings!
It will take a few days for me to get the 'flow' of this list, and the
sense of any threads already in progress. So I apologize if my query
has been recently discussed/resolved. Do we have a searchable archive
somewhere on the web?
First the good news: I got rid of my horrible old s
> "Interestingly, the majority of energy usage (around 80%) comes from
users viewing and deleting spam, and searching for legitimate emails
within spam filters."
Right -- if your users can't trust their 'spam' folder as spam, then
what is the point? They should keep it around so they can che
--On Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:22 PM +0100 Martin Hepworth
wrote:
Interesting article
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16951-spam-tramples-environment-wit
h-huge-carbon-footprint.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news I wonder how
they figure out the transmission costs are are doing someth
well.. thats not it. im using 0.13.5 also.
Larry Nedry wrote:
On 4/16/09 at 7:44 AM -0400 Michael Scheidell wrote:
Larry: what version of re2c are you using?
re2c 0.13.5
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
Phone: 561-999-5000, x 1259
> *| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Certi
On 4/16/09 at 7:44 AM -0400 Michael Scheidell wrote:
>Larry: what version of re2c are you using?
re2c 0.13.5
> On 4/15/09 at 10:30 AM -0400 Rick Macdougall wrote:
>> Normal sa-update && sa-compile takes about 2 minutes here.
>> If I add JM's saught rules it takes over 30 minutes.
>
> Here's another data point. With JM's sought and sought-fraud rules the
> compile takes less than 7 minutes on a server ru
Hi!
Normal sa-update && sa-compile takes about 2 minutes here.
If I add JM's saught rules it takes over 30 minutes.
Here's another data point. With JM's sought and sought-fraud rules the
compile takes less than 7 minutes on a server running an Intel Core 2 Duo
running at 2.13 GHz.
# time sa
A lot of stuff is cached between runs in ~/.spamassassin...
--j.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 02:56, Larry Nedry wrote:
> On 4/15/09 at 10:30 AM -0400 Rick Macdougall wrote:
>>Normal sa-update && sa-compile takes about 2 minutes here.
>>If I add JM's saught rules it takes over 30 minutes.
>
> Here's
19 matches
Mail list logo
