On Thu, 30 May 2019 23:29:10 +0100
RW wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2019 23:24:06 +0200
> Yves Goergen wrote:
>
>
> > BTW, why doesn't the --max-children option do anything? There are
> > always 5 child processes, no matter how busy they are. And when
> > they're all busy, nothing works anymore.
>
On Thu, 30 May 2019 23:24:06 +0200
Yves Goergen wrote:
> BTW, why doesn't the --max-children option do anything? There are
> always 5 child processes, no matter how busy they are. And when
> they're all busy, nothing works anymore.
I couldn't reproduce this on FreeBSD with perl 5.28.
On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:40:22 +0100
RW wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2019 23:24:06 +0200
> Yves Goergen wrote:
>
>
> > BTW, why doesn't the --max-children option do anything? There are
> > always 5 child processes, no matter how busy they are. And when
> > they're all busy, nothing works anymore.
>
On Thu, 30 May 2019 23:24:06 +0200
Yves Goergen wrote:
> BTW, why doesn't the --max-children option do anything? There are
> always 5 child processes, no matter how busy they are. And when
> they're all busy, nothing works anymore.
What are your arguments to spamd?
Thank you,
That's what I've also found somewhere. Since the rules were not fixed
this morning I have disabled that rule and it's stable again today.
Over the last night I've helped with a workaround to restart spamd every
20 minutes via cron. The monitoring did show maximum CPU usage several
On 5/30/2019 2:20 PM, David Jones wrote:
> I am using MailScanner which launches spamassassin on batches of emails
> and the past couple of weeks I have been getting SA timeouts and being
> killed by MailScanner. I have never found a way to troubleshoot this as
> I can't reproduce it consistent
On 30 May 2019, at 14:20, David Jones wrote:
On 5/30/19 8:10 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I would check your spamd logs and see the time each message scan is
taking. My servers can keep tons of spamd running at 100% just
because
of constant mail.
In other words, just having 5 processes at fu
On 05/30/2019 11:20, David Jones wrote:
> I am using KAM.cf which has the:
> meta __STYLE_GIBBERISH_1 0
> line but does that need to be:
> score __STYLE_GIBBERISH_1 0
> to completely disable it?
I don't believe so. I added the "meta" line to my local.cf last night,
and this seemed to suffice.
On 5/30/19 8:10 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> I would check your spamd logs and see the time each message scan is
> taking. My servers can keep tons of spamd running at 100% just because
> of constant mail.
>
> In other words, just having 5 processes at full load really doesn't mean
> much.
>
On 30 May 2019, at 10:57, Mike Ray wrote:
Hello all-
Been using spamassassin for awhile now, basically letting it run on
auto-pilot
and it's been great so far.
However, after the recent __STYLE_GIBBERISH bug
(https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7707), I need to
have a
little
The section titles in ruleqa.spamassassin.org start with "Set 0"
which I presume means score set 0. For the most part this makes no
difference, except for the score-map which is practically useless in
score set 0.
Is it possible to view the score map for other score sets.
On 30 May 2019, at 8:47, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> On 5/29/2019 6:12 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> I see this has been filed in bugzilla by now.
>
> Fo those looking for the bug report:
>
> https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7707
That is an older, related bug.
THIS one is in a
On 30 May 2019, at 11:23, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I believe a __ rule technically gets a score of 0.001 or something
like
that internally. Or is that just T_ rules?
That's T_ rules.
__ rules (subrules) get no score but are evaluated if any meta rule
using them has a score.
This is all i
Fair enough. Happy to look at spamples but I've seen virtually nothing in
the wild for this.
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:58 AM RW wrote:
> On Wed
I believe a __ rule technically gets a score of 0.001 or something like
that internally. Or is that just T_ rules?
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:15 A
On Thu, 30 May 2019, @lbutlr wrote:
On 29 May 2019, at 18:26, @lbutlr wrote:
May 29 18:06:12 mail kernel: pid 10588 (perl), uid 58: exited on signal 11
perl is used by SpamAssassin (only, I believe). I see some sporadic other spamd
logged errors in the same log file, but they seem to be seve
On Wed, 29 May 2019 13:32:18 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> 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.
FWIW it doe
On Wed, 29 May 2019 19:10:38 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> At work, we looked at this and decided the rule had no merit based on
> current mailstreams. Our guess was that the spam run it hit has
> ended. It is a deadweight rule.
It's also extremely lightweight.
Hello all-
Been using spamassassin for awhile now, basically letting it run on auto-pilot
and it's been great so far.
However, after the recent __STYLE_GIBBERISH bug
(https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7707), I need to have a
little more understanding of SA.
My biggest issue at
I would check your spamd logs and see the time each message scan is
taking. My servers can keep tons of spamd running at 100% just because of
constant mail.
In other words, just having 5 processes at full load really doesn't mean
much.
On Thu, May 30, 2019, 09:06 Larry Nedry wrote:
> On 5/29/1
On 5/29/19 7:32 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
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
FWIW, I've added this to local.cf, recompiled, and restarted spamd but
am still seeing CPUs ha
On 5/29/2019 6:12 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I see this has been filed in bugzilla by now.
Fo those looking for the bug report:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7707
On 5/29/2019 3:41 PM, Yves Goergen wrote:
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
This could be the style gibberish rule hanging. There's another thread
here a
On 29 May 2019, at 18:26, @lbutlr wrote:
> May 29 18:06:12 mail kernel: pid 10588 (perl), uid 58: exited on signal 11
>
> perl is used by SpamAssassin (only, I believe). I see some sporadic other
> spamd logged errors in the same log file, but they seem to be several minutes
> off from the core
24 matches
Mail list logo
