I have a bit of SA code where I strip leading and trailing whitespace -
foreach (@addrs) { s/^\s*([^\s]+)\s*$/\1/; }
Whenever I run this I get the warning "\1 better written as $1" which I
understand to be perl telling me that the right side of s/// should use
$digit, not \digit. I tried changi
On 6/9/2010 12:11 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 8-Jun-2010, at 19:34, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> Legacy version, 3.2.5 (rarely updated)
>>
> Even better:
>
> Unsupported version 3.2.5 (critical updates only)
>
> or
>
> Deprecated version: 3.2.5 (critical updates only, if at all)
>
>
Well, unsupp
I maintain a mail cluster that gets about 70,000 messages a day per
node.
I'm just wondering if it's possible to decrease the scan times. In the
TOTALS section AvgTm is the average "scantime" in the spamassassin log
file:
(Delivered are messages that SA scores under 5, Spamboxed are scored
5+, bu
On 6/9/10 2:40 AM, Daniel Lemke wrote:
Louis Guillaume-2 wrote:
2. When outgoing messages are checked, spamd tries to find a
user to run as using the recipient's address. The way this
is done is to use the user-portion of the recipient
address, which is absolutely insane!
Wh
On 9-Jun-2010, at 10:25, Alex wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>>> It would be great if you could document exactly what features are
>>> exclusively available in 3.3.x? In other words, can you quantify how
>>> much is being missed by continuing to use v3.2.5?
>>
>> All new rules. All current spam-fighting measu
Hi,
>> It would be great if you could document exactly what features are
>> exclusively available in 3.3.x? In other words, can you quantify how
>> much is being missed by continuing to use v3.2.5?
>
> All new rules. All current spam-fighting measures.
Yes, I realize that. I was hoping for specif
On 8-Jun-2010, at 21:22, Alex wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> We also very loudly repeatedly state on the list that if you want to
>> keep abreast of the latest spam, you need to be running the latest
>> version of the codebase (can't take advantage of new features without
>> it!), but don't have that clear
On 8-Jun-2010, at 19:34, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> Legacy version, 3.2.5 (rarely updated)
Even better:
Unsupported version 3.2.5 (critical updates only)
or
Deprecated version: 3.2.5 (critical updates only, if at all)
--
I collect blondes and bottles. ~Marlowe
Hi,
> The reported stackdump just shows a routine that was executing at
> the time when timer expired. It often shows the problem section
> (like a database access), but may just show an innocent bystander
> code which happened to be normally executing at the time.
Great, thanks. How about from a
I just noticed the new version of iXhash (from over a year ago).
The config file in this version has all of the scores set to 0.1. I
can't copy my old scores over because I have no idea how (or if) the new
domains map to the old ones.
Are there a set of recommended scores for this rule set?
I was looking at the hits on a drug spam and I noticed these two:
* 1.1 NO_PRESCRIPTION BODY: No prescription needed
* 1.5 FB_NO_SCRIP_NEEDED BODY: Phrase: no prescription needed.
The rules themselves are very similar. Should these two be combined?
--
Bowie
So? Yes, authentication and the ALL_TRUSTED rule does not prevent mail
from being scanned by SA. Clearly, because that is a SA rule...
What *does* prevent mail from being scanned by SA is *NOT* passing it to
SA in your MTA. I don't get your point.
Ok I just reread ur first post, I missunderstoo
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 13:51 +0100, a.sm...@ukgrid.net wrote:
> Quoting Karsten Bräckelmann :
> > On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 13:30 +0100, a.sm...@ukgrid.net wrote:
> > > On my system outbound mails are scanned, even though they are sent
> > > using authentication (not SASL auth tho), additionally the wik
Quoting Karsten Bräckelmann :
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 13:30 +0100, a.sm...@ukgrid.net wrote:
On my system outbound mails are scanned, even though they are sent
using authentication (not SASL auth tho), additionally the wiki
So? Yes, authentication and the ALL_TRUSTED rule does not prevent mail
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 13:30 +0100, a.sm...@ukgrid.net wrote:
> On my system outbound mails are scanned, even though they are sent
> using authentication (not SASL auth tho), additionally the wiki
So? Yes, authentication and the ALL_TRUSTED rule does not prevent mail
from being scanned by SA. C
You only hit the ALL_TRUSTED when mail is from a trusted relay, surely
thats not going to happen if people are sending from a workstation
mail to the server doing the checking?
Yes, it does. The originating host ("workstation") is trusted not to
send spam, because the submission is authenticated
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 12:57 +0100, a.sm...@ukgrid.net wrote:
> Quoting Karsten Bräckelmann :
> > Anyway, if they are really properly authenticated, they should trigger
> > ALL_TRUSTED and hardly anything else. [...]
> According to the wiki:
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/ALL_TRUSTED
>
Quoting Karsten Bräckelmann :
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 01:51 -0400, Louis Guillaume wrote:
Recently I've had a lot of reports of returned mail from authenticated
users. The messages are being bounced on the way out.
You forgot to provide the reason (SA rules hit) for the messages being
scored ab
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 01:51 -0400, Louis Guillaume wrote:
> Recently I've had a lot of reports of returned mail from authenticated
> users. The messages are being bounced on the way out.
You forgot to provide the reason (SA rules hit) for the messages being
scored above the threshold. We absolute
Alex,
> I have a server that's frequently pretty busy during the day, and just
> started to notice these messages periodically:
>
> Jun 8 13:35:39 mail01 amavis[28784]: (28784-272) SA TIMED OUT,
> backtrace: at /usr/lib/perl5/5.6.0/i386-linux/IO/Select.pm line
> 104\n\tIO::Select::can_read('IO::
20 matches
Mail list logo
