On 22.06.10 12:40, Henrique Fernandes wrote:
> My ram dos not get full, i do not have so many process, i limit it in
> postfix.
>
> It reduces the chances of losing emails if i do not have many process of
> spamassassin runing.
>
> So is safe or not to use tmpfs for tempdir in spamassassin. ?
I
it is taking about 3 seconds each email, i have pyzor and dcc, i am already
runing with mysql db.
After i get the statistis i will post here if tmpfs is faster or not! I made
some script that can't see anyway for losing email!
Thanks for all advise!
And sorry about my english
[]'sf.rique
On
> I don't know if it is safe. I suspect it will function normally, but I
> think you'd be in danger of losing a few messages on an unexpected
> reboot.
>
> I had a very dramatic performance improvement by switching bayes and
> awl
> databases to MySQL instead of the default BerkeleyDB. It costs
Hi,
> in amavisd, set this in policy bank: (obviously triggered on mynetworks ip.s
> you could also trigger on auth)
> $policy_bank{'MYNETS'} = { # mail originating from @mynetworks
> originating => 1,
> # virus_name_to_spam_score_maps => undef,
> bypass_spam_checks_maps => 1,
Great info. Tha
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, David Michaels wrote:
> Quoting "John Hardin" :
>
> > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, David Michaels wrote:
> >
> header __GK__PHARMS_01 To =~ micha...@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu
> header __GK__PHARMS_02 Subject =~ /PHARMA|PHARMACY/
> meta TR_GK__PHARMS (__GK_PHARMS_01 && __GK_PHAR
Sharma, Ashish wrote:
[snip]
> Jun 22 15:44:50.174 [12849] dbg: FuzzyOcr: Elapsed [12852]: 0.023864
> sec. (/usr/bin/giftopnm: exit 8)
[snip]
> Can anybody tell me what's wrong with my deployment?
I think all those exit error codes mean you have a bad netpbm
installation, error code 8 is "Exec fo
You do use 'spamassassin --lint' when you're writing new rules, correct?
Sincerely,
Adam Lanier
Voyant Strategies Inc.
-Original Message-
From: David Michaels [mailto:micha...@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:35 PM
To: SpamAssassin
Subject: Re: header To =~ question
Hi,
I have deployed an mail receiving postfix server combined with amavisd (with
clamAV and spamassassin) by using the reference:
http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Amavisd
on a CentOS 5.5(64 bit) machine.
Now I have deployed the FuzzyOCR module for image spam, but the test cases as
provided for f
Quoting "John Hardin" :
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, David Michaels wrote:
header __GK__PHARMS_01 To =~ micha...@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu
header __GK__PHARMS_02 Subject =~ /PHARMA|PHARMACY/
meta TR_GK__PHARMS (__GK_PHARMS_01 && __GK_PHARMS_02)
I'm still not matching
Count the underscores in your rule nam
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, David Michaels wrote:
> header __GK__PHARMS_01 To =~ micha...@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu
> header __GK__PHARMS_02 Subject =~ /PHARMA|PHARMACY/
> meta TR_GK__PHARMS (__GK_PHARMS_01 && __GK_PHARMS_02)
I'm still not matching
Count the underscores in your rule names...
--
John Hard
David Michaels wrote:
>
> I'm still not matching it the rule is a derivative of this other that
> does work for me..
>
> header __GK_CANA_PHARMS_01 Subject =~
> /DISCOUNT|GOOD|CANADA|FREE|ONLINE|SALE|STORE|BEST|USA|Product|BUY/i
> header __GK_CANA_PHARMS_02 Subject =~ /PHARMA|cialis|MEDICAL/i
> met
I don't know if it is safe. I suspect it will function normally, but I
think you'd be in danger of losing a few messages on an unexpected reboot.
I had a very dramatic performance improvement by switching bayes and awl
databases to MySQL instead of the default BerkeleyDB. It costs more
RAM,
Quoting "John Wilcock" :
Le 22/06/2010 17:09, David Michaels a écrit :
I don't mean to be stupid.. and I know that this should be done with
sieve but..
Is there a obvious reason this doesn't work?
I think it's the "To" thats messing up..
header __GK__PHARMS_01 To =~ micha...@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.e
pyzor and dcc
Só it might be it ?
If i am not using wont get in tmp ?
Right now i have 2 server with spamassassin, one i just put everything in
spamassassin in tmpfs and the other one i did not change anything
[]'sf.rique
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Gary Smith wrote:
>
>
> My ram dos
My ram dos not get full, i do not have so many process, i limit it in postfix.
It reduces the chances of losing emails if i do not have many process of
spamassassin runing.
So is safe or not to use tmpfs for tempdir in spamassassin. ?
This way, everything that spamassassin have to do with the
My ram dos not get full, i do not have so many process, i limit it in
postfix.
It reduces the chances of losing emails if i do not have many process of
spamassassin runing.
So is safe or not to use tmpfs for tempdir in spamassassin. ?
This way, everything that spamassassin have to do with the me
Quoting "John Hardin" :
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, David Michaels wrote:
Is there a obvious reason this doesn't work?
header __GK__PHARMS_01 To =~ micha...@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu
That looks insufficiently punctuated. Try:
header __GK__PHARMS_01 To =~ /michae...@ucrwcu\.rwc\.uc\.edu/i
header __GK__P
Quoting "Bowie Bailey" :
David Michaels wrote:
I don't mean to be stupid.. and I know that this should be done with
sieve but..
Is there a obvious reason this doesn't work?
I think it's the "To" thats messing up..
header __GK__PHARMS_01 To =~ micha...@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu
header __GK__PHARMS_0
Quoting "John Wilcock" :
Le 22/06/2010 17:09, David Michaels a écrit :
I don't mean to be stupid.. and I know that this should be done with
sieve but..
Is there a obvious reason this doesn't work?
I think it's the "To" thats messing up..
header __GK__PHARMS_01 To =~ micha...@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.e
> It is safe to use spamassassin tmpdir on a tmpfs mounted system ?
> And if its safe it would have a better performance ?
> Here where i work we have big problems with the hard drives, because we
> basically are sharing virtual machines disk over nfs. and spamassasin is a
> virtual machine.
> An
2010/6/22 Henrique Fernandes
> It is safe to use spamassassin tmpdir on a tmpfs mounted system ?
>
> And if its safe it would have a better performance ?
>
> Here where i work we have big problems with the hard drives, because we
> basically are sharing virtual machines disk over nfs. and spamass
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, David Michaels wrote:
Is there a obvious reason this doesn't work?
header __GK__PHARMS_01 To =~ micha...@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu
That looks insufficiently punctuated. Try:
header __GK__PHARMS_01 To =~ /michae...@ucrwcu\.rwc\.uc\.edu/i
header __GK__PHARMS_02 Subject =~ /PHARM
David Michaels wrote:
>
> I don't mean to be stupid.. and I know that this should be done with
> sieve but..
>
> Is there a obvious reason this doesn't work?
>
> I think it's the "To" thats messing up..
>
> header __GK__PHARMS_01 To =~ micha...@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu
> header __GK__PHARMS_02 Subject =~
Le 22/06/2010 17:09, David Michaels a écrit :
I don't mean to be stupid.. and I know that this should be done with
sieve but..
Is there a obvious reason this doesn't work?
I think it's the "To" thats messing up..
header __GK__PHARMS_01 To =~ micha...@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu
header __GK__PHARMS_02 S
I don't mean to be stupid.. and I know that this should be done with
sieve but..
Is there a obvious reason this doesn't work?
I think it's the "To" thats messing up..
header __GK__PHARMS_01 To =~ micha...@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu
header __GK__PHARMS_02 Subject =~ /PHARMA|PHARMACY/
meta TR_GK__PH
It is safe to use spamassassin tmpdir on a tmpfs mounted system ?
And if its safe it would have a better performance ?
Here where i work we have big problems with the hard drives, because we
basically are sharing virtual machines disk over nfs. and spamassasin is a
virtual machine.
Any other tip
On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 16:29 +0200, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 14:43, dimesio wrote:
>
> >
> > Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
> > >
> > > You can use a prefix at configure time; look in ./configure --help
> > >
> >
> > The prefix set by configure specifies where Wine itself is inst
On 6/21/10 7:41 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi,
by default, our appliances don't do outbound spam scanning (they scan for
virus, banned attachments). they have to enable outbound scanning, which has
more relaxed rules.
My understanding is that the only way to avoid this, at least when
amavisd an
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:39:33AM -0400, Adam Moffett wrote:
> My philosophy in the past has always been not to scan outgoing
> emails because my users are not likely to be spamming.
>
> However, a couple of issues recently with spambots and SMTP AUTH
> with weak passwords has me reconsidering th
Really thanks for the answers.
So, i need to configure my spamassassin installation to use the
running database (i'm already using a mysql database for other reason)
for whitelisting or i have to write the logic of a whitelist using my
database installationa?
Is there something i can read to go de
> > My understanding is that the only way to avoid this, at least when
> > amavisd and postfix, is to create another instance and modifying the
> > smtpd and using policy banks, which is quite involved. Is this
> > correct?
On 22.06.10 03:03, Mark Martinec wrote:
> Depends on your mail routing top
31 matches
Mail list logo
