On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 15:32 -0700, Happy Chap wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
> > Uninstalling the old version (Installed by distro packages, right!? You
> > never confirmed this.) would be a very good idea. But beware, if both
> > versions actually share some prefix and thus files, you migh
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 15:23 -0700, Happy Chap wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > What installed that init script? I believe SA built from CPAN does
> > *not*, so that's either your creation, or more likely part of the distro
> > supplied package (I assume) that provides SA 3.2.
> >
> > And,
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
>
>
> I guess so. You can quickly test, and revert the init script, if it
> doesn't work out.
>
>
Yes, that *appears* to have worked.
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
>
>
> Well, you got to clean it up anyway. ;)
>
> Uninstalling the old version (Installed by di
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 15:10 -0700, Happy Chap wrote:
> > /usr/bin/spamd is v3.3.1
> > /usr/sbin/spamd is v3.2.3
> > /usr/bin/X11/spamd is also v3.3.1
>
> Is it as simple as I just need to edit my /etc/init.d/spamd script to amend
> any references in their from /usr/sbin/spamd to /usr/bin/spamd ?
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
>
>
> Mixing packages and CPAN never is a good idea...
>
>
OK, lesson learnt!
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
>
>
> What installed that init script? I believe SA built from CPAN does
> *not*, so that's either your creation, or more likely part of the distro
> su
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 15:02 -0700, Happy Chap wrote:
> Happy Chap wrote:
> > If I just issue a spamd --version at the bash prompt, it does report back
> > as SpamAssassin Server version 3.3.1 and as to which spamd, I seem to have
> > 3: /usr/bin/spamd /usr/sbin/spamd and also /usr/bin/X11/spamd
>
Happy Chap wrote:
>
>
> OK, I've got a little further:
>
> /usr/bin/spamd is v3.3.1
> /usr/sbin/spamd is v3.2.3
> /usr/bin/X11/spamd is also v3.3.1
>
>
Is it as simple as I just need to edit my /etc/init.d/spamd script to amend
any references in their from /usr/sbin/spamd to /usr/bin/spam
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 14:54 -0700, Happy Chap wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Hmmmthanks for your reply Karsten.
>
> I already had v3.2.3 running on the system, so I thought was upgrading! I
> followed the instructions on the "Upgrading to the latest version" page
> (http://wiki.apache.
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
>
>
> So when you confirmed by running sa-learn --dump magic previously, did
> you first su to the user in question? The Bayes database does exist in
> the user's $HOME/.spamassassin/, right?
>
Yes, I had su'ed to that user and yes, they have their own bayes_see
Happy Chap wrote:
>
>
> If I just issue a spamd --version at the bash prompt, it does report back
> as SpamAssassin Server version 3.3.1 and as to which spamd, I seem to have
> 3: /usr/bin/spamd /usr/sbin/spamd and also /usr/bin/X11/spamd
>
>
OK, I've got a little further:
/usr/bin/spamd
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
>
> I guess the subject is incorrect. You are indeed running 3.2.3. ;)
>
> Upgraded, you just said. In previous posts you said "installed". That
> makes a difference.
>
> How did you install 3.3? Given the Perl module dependency issues you
> mentioned, I guess via
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 14:39 -0700, Happy Chap wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > Stupid question here, but are you sure you are training the same
> > database that SA is using?
> >
> > This is a fairly frequent problem. Common cases are:
> >
> > 1) SA being called as 'mailuser' and you are doing
Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
>
> Stupid question here, but are you sure you are training the same
> database that SA is using?
>
> This is a fairly frequent problem. Common cases are:
>
> 1) SA being called as 'mailuser' and you are doing manual training on
> root's database.
> 2) You are manuall
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 14:18 -0700, Happy Chap wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just upgraded from SpamAssassin 3.2.3 to 3.3.1 and it all appeared to
> install correctly. However, X-Spam-Version-Checker is still coming up as
> 3.2.3 after restarting spamd. Can anyone suggest what I've done wrong?
I think tha
I guess the subject is incorrect. You are indeed running 3.2.3. ;)
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 14:18 -0700, Happy Chap wrote:
> I've just upgraded from SpamAssassin 3.2.3 to 3.3.1 and it all appeared to
> install correctly. However, X-Spam-Version-Checker is still coming up as
> 3.2.3 after restarting s
Hi,
I've just upgraded from SpamAssassin 3.2.3 to 3.3.1 and it all appeared to
install correctly. However, X-Spam-Version-Checker is still coming up as
3.2.3 after restarting spamd. Can anyone suggest what I've done wrong?
If I try:
perl -MMail::SpamAssassin -e 'print $Mail::SpamAssassin::VERSI
On 8/4/2010 4:24 PM, Happy Chap wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> On 8/4/2010 4:23 AM, Happy Chap wrote:
>>
>> You ARE manually training bayes (sa-learn) on these missed spams,
>> right? That is probably the most useful thing you can do if you are
>> getting Bayes_00 on them.
> Hi Bowie, oh yes, e
John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Happy Chap wrote:
>
>
> Apart from BAYES_00 what rules are they hitting?
>
>
Thanks for your reply John.
They're all more or less the same triggering:
BAYES_00
HTML_MESSAGE
MPART_ALT_DIFF
RDNS_NONE
and occasionally they also pick up one of the
Henrik K wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 06:58:52AM -0700, Happy Chap wrote:
>
> Do the tokens look such that they might be used in legimate messages?
> Usually you just have to sa-learn --spam enough of such spams to get
> atleast
> BAYES_50.
>
> I have no idea what kind of spams they are
Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> On 8/4/2010 4:23 AM, Happy Chap wrote:
>
> You ARE manually training bayes (sa-learn) on these missed spams,
> right? That is probably the most useful thing you can do if you are
> getting Bayes_00 on them.
>
>
Hi Bowie, oh yes, every night.
--
View this message in
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 14:14 -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> For a couple of weeks now, spamd has been occasionally logging messages
> like this:
>
> Aug 4 02:49:58 ebox spamd[]: logger: try using
> --syslog-socket={unix,inet} or --syslog=file
> Aug 4 02:49:59 ebox spamd[30417]: logger: try us
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Happy Chap wrote:
In that case (and I've been barking up the wrong tree) do you have any
suggestion as to what my next move should be to try to trap this type of
spam? I'm moderately technical, but I think I've probably reached the
limit of my current knowledge but am happy
Hello,
For a couple of weeks now, spamd has been occasionally logging messages
like this:
Aug 4 02:49:58 ebox spamd[]: logger: try using --syslog-socket={unix,inet}
or --syslog=file
Aug 4 02:49:59 ebox spamd[30417]: logger: try using
--syslog-socket={unix,inet} or --syslog=file
Generally
On 8/4/2010 4:23 AM, Happy Chap wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We started getting (over the last 2 months say) lots of spam, which
> Spamassassin isn't picking up as spam. Analysing these, they all seem to be
> of the same type where many paragraphs of random text are "hidden" inside an
> HTML comment (either c
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 06:58:52AM -0700, Happy Chap wrote:
>
>
>
> Henrik K wrote:
> >
> >
> > Instead of speculating, try:
> >
> > cat msg | spamassassin -t -D bayes 2>&1 | grep bayes:
> >
> > It will tell you exactly what tokens are considered.
> >
> >
>
> Hi Henrik,
>
> Thanks for yo
Henrik K wrote:
>
>
> Instead of speculating, try:
>
> cat msg | spamassassin -t -D bayes 2>&1 | grep bayes:
>
> It will tell you exactly what tokens are considered.
>
>
Hi Henrik,
Thanks for your reply.
I'm not sure I totally understand all of the output to that, but I think
that's tel
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 01:23:32AM -0700, Happy Chap wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We started getting (over the last 2 months say) lots of spam, which
> Spamassassin isn't picking up as spam. Analysing these, they all seem to be
> of the same type where many paragraphs of random text are "hidden" inside an
Hi RW, thanks for your reply.
>It's unlikely that that could push the BAYES RESULT down to BAYES_00
>unless there is uncorrected mistraining.
Possibly, but I suspect mistraining isn't a problem because apart from this
specific type of spam, Spamassassin is doing (and has done for sometime) a
ver
Suhag P Desai wrote:
No even when I try to do spamd at very first time after reboot the server, I
get the same message,...
huh? See below.
Below are the output of
[r...@spd ~]# ps -ef | grep spamd
root 3519 3516 0 12:44 ?00:00:00 supervise spamd
root 3544 3519 0 12:4
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 01:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
Happy Chap wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We started getting (over the last 2 months say) lots of spam, which
> Spamassassin isn't picking up as spam. Analysing these, they all seem
> to be of the same type where many paragraphs of random text are
> "hidden" inside a
Hi,
We started getting (over the last 2 months say) lots of spam, which
Spamassassin isn't picking up as spam. Analysing these, they all seem to be
of the same type where many paragraphs of random text are "hidden" inside an
HTML comment (either contained in or inbetween /* and */ "tags").
Beca
No even when I try to do spamd at very first time after reboot the server, I
get the same message,...
r...@spd ~]# spamd
[4581] warn: server socket setup failed, retry 1: spamd: could not create
INET socket on 127.0.0.1:783: Address already in use
[4581] warn: server socket setup failed, retry 2:
32 matches
Mail list logo
