RE: Connection timed out

2008-05-01 Thread Ross Boylan
On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 15:57 -0400, Jean-Paul Natola wrote: > > -Original Message- > From: Ross Boylan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 3:33 PM > To: Jean-Paul Natola > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; SpamAssassin > Subject: RE: Connection timed out &g

RE: Connection timed out

2008-05-01 Thread Ross Boylan
On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 13:54 -0400, Jean-Paul Natola wrote: > OPTIONS="--create-prefs --max-children 5 --helper-home-dir \ > --username=mail --socketpath=/var/run/spamd/socket" > > >I'm running on a Pentium 4 with hyperthreading, which appears as 2 CPU's > >to the OSs. There's really only 1

Connection timed out

2008-05-01 Thread Ross Boylan
'm running on a Pentium 4 with hyperthreading, which appears as 2 CPU's to the OSs. There's really only 1 CPU. I wonder if that could have something to do with the trouble. I'd appreciate any help tracking down and fixing this problem. Thanks. Ross Boylan syslog excerpts: Apr

Re: my own relay is unparseable

2006-07-03 Thread Ross Boylan
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 15:15 -0700, Loren Wilton wrote: > > [23790] dbg: received-header: unknown format: from iron.psg.net ([unix > > socket]) by iron (Cyrus v2.1.18-IPv6-Debian-2.1.18-3) with LMTP; Mon, 19 > > Jun 2006 20:42:38 -0700 > > The problem is probably the [unix socket] part, at a guess.

Am I getting all the rules?

2006-07-03 Thread Ross Boylan
s are basically OK, maybe I need to suggest the Debian packager modify sa-update to include any Debian-specific files. -- Ross Boylan wk: (415) 514-8146 185 Berry St #5700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept of Epidemiology and Biostatistics

my own relay is unparseable

2006-07-03 Thread Ross Boylan
-header: found fetchmail marker, restarting parse Those received lines are from my own system. Is there anything I can do about this? Does it matter? (I'm getting an informational message, but 0.0 points; also I notice it says "restarting parse"). SpamAssassin version 3.1.3

Re: trusted_networks confusion--simple case

2006-07-03 Thread Ross Boylan
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 03:55 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: ... > > Hopefully I've clarified any remaining questions about this. If I > haven't maybe Matt, Bowie, Kelson or someone else will take a whack at > it. I'm four hours into a public holiday so I now get to bill you twice > as much!

Re: trusted_networks confusion--simple case (clarification)

2006-06-30 Thread Ross Boylan
To clear up an ambiguity in my original: On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 19:19 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote: > Does a machine that is not part of my domain qualify as a client? > Suppose my MTA is contacted by a dial-up IP for somewhere.com (not my > domain), and that I do want to accept such mail.

Re: trusted_networks confusion--authentication

2006-06-30 Thread Ross Boylan
Now for the "3 tests" as they apply to my non-hypothetical case. On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 01:45 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: [..] > Mail Submission Agent... accepts mail from your own clients' MUAs (also > known as UAs). > > > >> You can not add your MSA to your internal_networks unless you can

Re: trusted_networks confusion--simple case

2006-06-30 Thread Ross Boylan
escribed here; I said "assume for simplicity" in the opening just because I'm having trouble even with the simple case. So I'm still trying to understand the principles. > > Ross Boylan wrote: > > Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I

Re: trusted_networks confusion

2006-06-30 Thread Ross Boylan
Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I will focus exclusively on the question of whether a host that receives messages from dial-up hosts should go on internal_networks. Assume for simplicity I have a mail domain b.c. The MX records point to a.b.c. I'm running SA on a.b.c for m

Re: trusted networks

2006-06-30 Thread Ross Boylan
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 19:52 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote: > Ross Boylan wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 00:30 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote: > > > > > >> No, internal must never receive mail directly from a dialup node. SA > >> applies DUL RBLs and other such

Re: trusted networks

2006-06-29 Thread Ross Boylan
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 00:30 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote: > No, internal must never receive mail directly from a dialup node. SA > applies DUL RBLs and other such tests against hosts delivering mail to > internal hosts. I thought internal_hosts never get mail from DUL RBLs. So why would SA check if

Re: trusted_networks confusion

2006-06-27 Thread Ross Boylan
Thank you for your very clear answers. I have a few follow-up questions below. On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 23:44 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: > On 6/21/2006 4:39 PM, Ross Boylan wrote: > > After reading the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf (spamassassin 3.1.3-1 on > > Debian) I was u

trusted_networks confusion

2006-06-21 Thread Ross Boylan
uot; is wrong. MXes that get mail from dial-up hosts do not belong in internal_networks. If this distinction based on dial-up hosts is the key one, the names trusted_networks and internal_networks seem pretty confusing to me. -- Ross Boylan wk: (415) 514-8146 1