Apache SpamAssassin Project
> [ https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail | https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail
> ]
> - 703.798.0171
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:48 AM Dave Goodrich < [
> mailto:dgoodr...@greenfieldin.org | dgoodr...@greenfieldin.org ] > wrote:
>> No, I am reading you
ware Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> [ https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail | https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail
> ]
> - 703.798.0171
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:23 AM Dave Goodrich < [
> mailto:dgoodr...@greenfieldin.org | dgoodr...@greenfieldin.org ] &g
The wrong side of history? Are you kidding me?
I have been a long time user of Apache products. SA has been my go to solution
for decades. Until this morning, I was without opinion on this issue and I even
understood, and agreed, that the change had merit for clarity. But, 'go along
or be on t
That looks very familiar, and exactly what I am looking for. I can make that
script work with our log files, thank you.
DAve
- On Dec 4, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Chris Pollock cpoll...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 11:22 -0500, Dave Goodrich wrote:
>> Good morning,
&g
Thank you, we will look at that for possibly other things as well.
DAve
- On Dec 4, 2019, at 2:30 PM, Giovanni Bechis giova...@paclan.it wrote:
> On 12/4/19 5:22 PM, Dave Goodrich wrote:
>> Good morning,
>>
>> Many years ago, in previous jobs, I used several s
useful.
Can anyone recommend a ready to run OSS script, or set of scripts, for basic
maillog stats concerning Spam? Just thought I would ask before I wrote
something. Internet searching is not turning up anything for me.
Thanks,
DAve
--
Dave Goodrich
Information Technology
City of Greenfield
Had the address been correct, it
would have been stopped.
Even if only for this one account, I need a rule to check that the Mayor's
display name matches the Mayor's email account and I am at a loss how to manage
that with SA rule structure.
Any thoughts on that or has anyone done som
David SternUniversity of Maryland
Institute for Advanced Computer Studies
--
Dave Goodrich
Systems Administrator
http://www.tls.net
Get rid of Unwanted Emails...get TLS Spam Blocker!
ill use the host file or not.
DAve
--
Dave Goodrich
Systems Administrator
http://www.tls.net
Get rid of Unwanted Emails...get TLS Spam Blocker!
;d like to
run one method of catching the result of spamc and delivering based on
the result spamc hands back.
I'm concerned about using procmail and system resources/speed, I've
never used maildrop, how are others handling delivery after spamc?
Thanks,
DAve
--
Dave Goodrich
System
Christian Recktenwald wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 10:56:22AM +, Stefano Catani wrote:
here is the message:
http://mail.units.it/6474
it contains a lot of email addresses and stops our mailserver
these are the times on a dual PIII 1GHz (SpamAssassin 3.0.2)
time spamc < 6474
real9m59.995s
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Wednesday, January 5, 2005, 9:06:37 AM, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Chris Santerre wrote:
Just curious as to what average percent of spam people see SURBL hitting. In
a non scientific manor, I average about 85% or greater hitting SURBL for all
spam that doesn't get rejected by m
Chris Santerre wrote:
Just curious as to what average percent of spam people see SURBL hitting. In
a non scientific manor, I average about 85% or greater hitting SURBL for all
spam that doesn't get rejected by my MTA. I have a feeling if I clean up my
results a bit, that number would be even higher
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 6:35:52 AM, Andrew Xiang wrote:
How to configure URIDNSBL on Freebsd? It does not seem to work by default.
-Andrew
Try removing from your resolv.conf:
nameserver 127.0.0.1
and adding some external nameservers. This may be a bug
in the FreeBSD
I've been watching these messages concerning high memory and cpu usage
in spamd. In fact it caused me to wait until 3.01. But I have upgraded,
running now for several days. Spamd is quite well behaved, not catching
as much as 2.64 was, but I am still tuning.
I don't know if it matters but I'll
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 10:17 AM 11/4/2004, Sean Doherty wrote:
> JMHO, but shouldn't all networks be considered untrusted unless a user
> specifies otherwise?
I got to agree with you there - especially given that the inference
algorithm doesn't work in every environment.
Unfortunately this only so
t 09:54 AM 11/4/2004 -0500, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Yes I just submitted a bug on the matter.. Currently ALL_TRUSTED
fires whenever there are no untrusted relays detected.. However, it
fails to check that any trusted relays exist...
I opened this bug to suggest a fix for ALL_T
Sean Doherty wrote:
On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 14:14, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Sean Doherty wrote:
I will look into that, I didn't set it as I want no network to be
trusted. I'll reread what I can find on that.
Just set trusted_network 127.0.0.1
Yes, this fixed it.
Since you hit ALL_TRUSTED cer
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 02:19 PM 11/4/2004 +, Sean Doherty wrote:
Matt, does this mean that even if trusted_networks is set in local.cf,
SpamAssassin will fire the ALL_TRUSTED rule even if it can't parse
the received headers? i.e. Since there are no parsable received
headers, SA will assume that
Sean Doherty wrote:
On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 21:40, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Good afternoon,
I just finished testing an upgrade of SA to 3.01 and my scores fell
through the floor. Read the docs, tried to use the Wiki, followed
everyone else's upgrade on the list. Not sure just what went wrong.
X
Jason Haar wrote:
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 11:43:30AM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 03:12:47PM +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
It seems to me that could improve performance (a little bit) - a whole
bunch of I/O could be skipped...
It's the whole message. Most of the time spamc gets
Good afternoon,
I just finished testing an upgrade of SA to 3.01 and my scores fell
through the floor. Read the docs, tried to use the Wiki, followed
everyone else's upgrade on the list. Not sure just what went wrong.
DAve
Here is a sample output of spamassassin -D < test_spam (a known spam
tha
2.64 spamc on toasters with 3.0.1 spamd running on NFS server. Currently
we are all 2.64, but I am planning to upgrade the NFS box tonight to 3.0.1
Anyone tried it? I hope I do not have to go and rebuild all my toasters.
It looks as though it should be fine, we use no Bayes, no AWL.
Just tought
email builder wrote:
I'd recommend upgrading to a dual server or perhaps putting in a second
server with round robin DNS (or if you can do it, a load balancer).
also, what do people think about a multiple cpu machine vs more than one
machine? dumb question? (two machines always are faster than o
email builder wrote:
We currently use MailScanner/ClamAV/sendmail on our Gateway with three
toasters running qmail/vpopmail calling SA from a script added to the
users .qmail file. All Maildirs are NFS mounted as are qmail control files.
NFS 4 by chance? Do you have any opinions on its security
email builder wrote:
We currently use MailScanner/ClamAV/sendmail on our Gateway with three
toasters running qmail/vpopmail calling SA from a script added to the
users .qmail file. All Maildirs are NFS mounted as are qmail control files.
NFS 4 by chance? Do you have any opinions on its security
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Jeffrey Lee wrote:
The email server I am using now has some unwelcomed price changes
happening soon and I would like to switch to another server. I
would like something that works well with SA and possibly ClamAV.
The server would require pop, imap, and webmail. If someone coul
Jim Maul wrote:
Quoting Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
* Michele Neylon::Blacknight Solutions <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why is List-Id not sufficient?
It's only visible if you examine the header. Something in the subject
line is a lot more visual
Pssst: "Subject:" is also a header.
I was non c
28 matches
Mail list logo
