Re: spamassassin 3.3.1 for Debian Lenny

* Alessio Cecchi [20100415 10:23]: > > now we are running spamassassin 3.3.0 on debian lenny, package is > installed from backports. > > Nobody knows if it was packaged (.deb) version 3.3.1 for lenny? > Version 3.3.1-1 is in Debian testing (as of 2010-04-05), but hasn't made it to lenny-backpo

Re: Using Pzyor with high volume

* Jason J. Ellingson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20080430 13:21]: > I am trying those settings, yet I get no Pyzor hits. > > I can manually do a "readyexec /tmp/pyzor ping" which works fine... > > Any other suggestions? > Try running spamassassin with debug mode on (-D) look for pyzor related stuff.

Re: Using Pzyor with high volume

* Jason J. Ellingson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20080430 11:07]: > Yup... I got the "server" portion running... The trick now is to get > SpamAssassin to use "readyexec /tmp/pyzor" instead of just "pyzor"... > Any suggestions? I was looking at modifying Pyzor.pm in the > SpamAssassin perl directory. So

Re: Using Pzyor with high volume

* Jason J. Ellingson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20080430 10:59]: > I decided to look into this as well. > > I managed to get ReadyExec installed, but am having difficulty changing > the Pyzor.pm to find and use readyexec properly. Anyone else have luck? > This works for me: readyexecd.py /tmp/p

Re: Using Pzyor with high volume

* Robert Blayzor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20080430 07:46]: > In regards to Pyzor. I'm wondering if anyone out there is using this at > any large scale. Unlike the razor-agent which appears to be a Perl module > that gets loaded at startup, I'm concerned about SA having to exec the > python interp

Re: Pyzor and cloudmark

* Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20080313 07:59]: > > > > Is anyone using pyzor ? > > > > both server and client here yes > > looking at it now, I got no PYZOR catches last day :( FWIW, at our site PYZOR_CHECK fires on about 65% of all of our spam. We had a total of 7523 hits for P

Re: URIDNSBL.pm improvements in 3.1?

* Stuart Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20050603 11:09]: > >Is there any straightforward way to backport some of this goodness to > >3.0.x? I don't mind running the development snapshots at home but at > >work I have to answer to a couple thousand users... > > Here is the bug concerning the copy-p

URIDNSBL.pm improvements in 3.1?

So I've noticed that the URIDNSBL.pm in the 3.1 snapshots seems to recognize obfuscated URIs much better than in 3.0.x. In other words I was looking at a message that my relatively well maintained 3.0.3 installation didn't catch. Then I tried running the same message through my personal 3.1 sna

highly available sitewide bayes, local db vs. sql

What sort of experiences have people had managing a sitewide bayes db that is used by spamassassin (spamd|amavisd) instances on multiple machines? I've got an environment with spamassassin/amavisd-new running in parallel on a pool of two (but possibly more in the future) equally weighted machines.

Re: bayes_expiry_max_db_size setting for sitewide installation?

* Ben Poliakoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20050223 11:46]: > What sort of guidelines/rules of thumb/formulas have people used to > determine the bayes_expiry_max_db_size setting for a sitewide bayes > database? Thanks Matt, Kris, and Kai, Very useful comments all around. I now have

bayes_expiry_max_db_size setting for sitewide installation?

What sort of guidelines/rules of thumb/formulas have people used to determine the bayes_expiry_max_db_size setting for a sitewide bayes database? The Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf man page says the default is 15 tokens (which, it says, is equivalent to roughly 8mb). It seems a little extreme to si