Greetings Martin:
Use surbl.
Thank you.
At 04:18 PM 4/25/2005, you wrote:
Hi
All,
We have been using SA for the past year and a
half with detection rates around 95% or better (based on client
feedback). Over the past couple days (since Thursday April 21st) we
have been getting lots of spam ma
Greetings Pat:
Check the following:
1. /tmp is not full.
2. The directory where the spamd socket is created has the correct
ownership (uid, guid) and permissions; if it is not in the /tmp area, then
also make sure the area the socket is created is not full.
Thank you.
At 07:46 AM 3/22/
Greetings Mike:
We've seen this happen when spamd dies or otherwise gets overloaded.
You may want to look at the "max children" option; you may have no value
(and therefore want to try it; we use 10 on busy mail servers and that
appears to work ok) or a high value (for which you may want to lower
Greetings Martin:
We have rbldnsd running of a private IP with BIND/DNS forwarding calls to
the various SURBL lists to that name server. We are approved to rsync the
data from surbl; and that's been working well.
Our primary mail server is on a physical server running several network
applicati
> DNI Support Department wrote:
>>
>> Is there a way to enable network tests for just SURBL (we have a local,
>> kept up to date with rsync, copy)?
> One possible problem with doing this is that it will switch you to the
> network score sets giving you lower scores for o
Greetings Jeff:
These are live examples; but it appears the porn spam all follow the same
hex (?) directory structure after the domain name.
Hence, wanting a pattern for that purpose.
Thank you.
At 09:15 AM 3/11/2005, you wrote:
On Friday, March 11, 2005, 6:01:58 AM, DNI Department wrote:
> Howev
Greetings:
While it has never been pleasant, we regularly review spam including the
HTML source code behind the spam to help us adjust our system-wide spam
tagging rules.
We've noticed a lot of sick porn spam being left untagged.
The tests that raised the score, though not high enough were as fo
Greetings:
If we disable network tests by using "--local" in our start up of spamd,
spam assassin averages 0.1 to 0.3 seconds per email to process its rules.
If we enable network tests, then spam assassin averages 11 to 15 seconds
per email to process its rules.
Of all the network tests, we fin
