On May 29, 2019, at 21:08, Bill Cole
wrote:
>> On 29 May 2019, at 20:34, @lbutlr wrote:
>>> On 29 May 2019, at 18:26, @lbutlr wrote:
>>> Seeing a lot of this in the messages log
>>>
>>> May 29 18:03:01 mail kernel: pid 99745 (perl), uid 0: exited on signal 11
>>> (core dumped)
>>
>> Could the
On 29 May 2019, at 20:34, @lbutlr wrote:
On 29 May 2019, at 18:26, @lbutlr wrote:
Seeing a lot of this in the messages log
May 29 18:03:01 mail kernel: pid 99745 (perl), uid 0: exited on
signal 11 (core dumped)
Could these be a result of the __STYLE_GIBBERISH_1 fault discussed in
other th
On May 29, 2019, at 19:11, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> configure proper timeouts in the SA instance for the milter
I disabled the rule in my local.cf, but the core dumps continue.
Otherwise my local.cf and SpamAss-Miller config is pretty much unchanged from
what it’s been the last several years.
On 29 May 2019, at 18:26, @lbutlr wrote:
> Seeing a lot of this in the messages log
>
> May 29 18:03:01 mail kernel: pid 99745 (perl), uid 0: exited on signal 11
> (core dumped)
Could these be a result of the __STYLE_GIBBERISH_1 fault discussed in other
threads?
--
There is NO Rule six!
Seeing a lot of this in the messages log
May 29 18:03:01 mail kernel: pid 99745 (perl), uid 0: exited on signal 11 (core
dumped)
May 29 18:03:03 mail kernel: pid 457 (perl), uid 0: exited on signal 11 (core
dumped)
May 29 18:03:06 mail kernel: pid 1456 (perl), uid 0: exited on signal 11 (core
d
>> /^(?!.*\b1\.0\b).+/
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> to avoid punishing the form
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Mime-Version: (Nosuch Mail 2.0) 1.0
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> which is valid, thoug
John, so many of my spams are hitting BOGUS_MIME_VERSION that I would
>> >> imagine it's worth sandboxing and incorporating into the primary
>> ruleset.
>> >
>> > I've added both versions as unscored rules so we can see how they
>> perform.
&
er seen it (comments are
>> >>> usually on the right).
>> >>
>> >> John, so many of my spams are hitting BOGUS_MIME_VERSION that I would
>> >> imagine it's worth sandboxing and incorporating into the primary ruleset.
>> >
>> >
right).
> >>
> >> John, so many of my spams are hitting BOGUS_MIME_VERSION that I would
> >> imagine it's worth sandboxing and incorporating into the primary
> ruleset.
> >
> > I've added both versions as unscored rules so we can see how they
> perf
There is a meta that Karsten posted on list and we have it in KAM.cf if you
use and update that. Masscheck can take days to publish rules
unfortunately.
On Wed, May 29, 2019, 18:59 John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2019, Yves Goergen wrote:
>
> > * There are 5 processes named "spamd child" wi
On Thu, 30 May 2019, Yves Goergen wrote:
* There are 5 processes named "spamd child" with very high (100%) CPU usage
...
I have never seen this behaviour before. As it is now, the spam filter is
making my mail service very unreliable for incoming mail. What can I do to
fix that?
This will *
Hello,
Today SpamAssassin started failing on my server system. I could observe
the following:
* There are 5 processes named "spamd child" with very high (100%) CPU usage
* The Exim mail server temporarily rejects the recipients because it
cannot connect to the spamd server
This is the Exim
On Wed, 29 May 2019, Bill Cole wrote:
On 28 May 2019, at 4:31, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
Hello,
with a recent update to the ruleset, we're encountering certain mails,
which cause the rule-evaluation to use 100% cpu.
The effect was reproduced with Proxmox Mailgateway 5.2 (running
Spamassassin 3.4.
versions as unscored rules so we can see how they perform.
Masscheck doesn't think much of them:
https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20190529-r1860321-n/__BOGUS_MIME_VER_01/detail
https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20190529-r1860321-n/__BOGUS_MIME_VER_02/detail
The good news is their S/O is 1.00
On Wed, 29 May 2019, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 12:47 +0200, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 11:31:42 +0200 Matthias Egger wrote:
On 28.05.19 10:31, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
with a recent update to the ruleset, we're encountering certain
mails, which cause the rule
On Wed, 29 May 2019, Bill Cole wrote:
On 28 May 2019, at 4:31, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
Hello,
with a recent update to the ruleset, we're encountering certain mails,
which cause the rule-evaluation to use 100% cpu.
The effect was reproduced with Proxmox Mailgateway 5.2 (running
Spamassassin 3.4.
Hi,
On Wed, 29 May 2019 15:12:59 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 12:47 +0200, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 May 2019 11:31:42 +0200 Matthias Egger
> > wrote:
> > > On 28.05.19 10:31, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
> > > > with a recent update to the ruleset, we're enco
On 28 May 2019, at 4:31, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
Hello,
with a recent update to the ruleset, we're encountering certain mails,
which cause the rule-evaluation to use 100% cpu.
The effect was reproduced with Proxmox Mailgateway 5.2 (running
Spamassassin 3.4.2 ) and Ubuntu 19.04 (also running Spama
On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 12:47 +0200, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 11:31:42 +0200 Matthias Egger wrote:
> > On 28.05.19 10:31, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
> > > with a recent update to the ruleset, we're encountering certain
> > > mails, which cause the rule-evaluation to use 100% cpu.
Thanks
On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 08:27 +0200, Markus Benning wrote:
> Hi,
>
> seems to work.
>
> Had to add
>
> score __STYLE_GIBBERISH_1 0
That's a non-scoring sub-rule, setting its score to 0 has no effect.
Redefining the rule to disable it is the way to go:
meta __STYLE_GIBBERISH_1 0
> to my SA co
Hello.!!!
[root@server ~] # yum list installed perl-Socket
Complementos cargados:fastestmirror
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
* elrepo: ftp.utexas.edu
* epel: espejito.fder.edu.uy
Paquetes instalados
perl-Socket.x86_64
2.010-4.
Hello Stoiko,
On 29.05.19 12:47, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
Aye - sorry for that! I first wanted to open a bug-report at bugzilla,
No Problem... at least the problem triggered here before the public
holiday and not in between ;-)
But anyway, can you tell me how you found out __STYLE_GIBBERISH_1 i
Hi,
On Wed, 29 May 2019 11:31:42 +0200
Matthias Egger wrote:
> Hello Stoiko,
>
> On 28.05.19 10:31, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
> > with a recent update to the ruleset, we're encountering certain
> > mails, which cause the rule-evaluation to use 100% cpu.
> > [...]
> >
> > I'm attaching a rather smal
Hello Stoiko,
On 28.05.19 10:31, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
with a recent update to the ruleset, we're encountering certain mails,
which cause the rule-evaluation to use 100% cpu.
[...]
I'm attaching a rather small sample mail which reproduces the issue.
Well, thank you for crashing my amavisd-new
On 28.05.19 12:50, Jim Dunphy wrote:
Attempting to answer all your questions related to zimbra
Zimbra doesn't do any training until it is kicked off by cron for the zimbra
user... Training a message as spam from the MUA interface sends the email to a
special spam account... Training messages a
25 matches
Mail list logo
