Details on configuration. Both machines, ma1 and ma2 are identical.
We are running:
sendmail
spamhaus.org blacklist which rejects the majority of mail so
SpamAssassin does not have to process that chunk of mail.
spamd (spamassassin) - 2 instances of spamd on each machine.
mimedefang
clamav
a f
bout 1.5 Gig of this. Swap usage is the same on both machines at
500M each.
Thanks for the suggestions. They are good factors to consider.
Dan Zachary
Kris Deugau wrote:
Spam Admin wrote:
I have two mail servers running Spamassassin. One is running 3.1.9
and the other 3.2.4, both with
I have two mail servers running Spamassassin. One is running 3.1.9 and
the other 3.2.4, both with the same set of local rules, plus the
standard rules that come with each version.
The 'load' on the processors for 3.2.4 is about *4 times more *than the
'load' on 3.1.9.
Do others have the sam
>>> Do spammers try to guess mx servers which look similar to the one (or two
>>> or... :-) published in the DNS?
They don't guess. They intentionally hit your secondary and tertiary, in the
expectation that it has a lesser level of spam protection.
Confidentiality Notice
This e-mail message,
Does anyone here have experience with using Postfix for LDAP lookups to
eDirectory (GroupWise system)? Primarily I'm looking for attribute mapping
info. Our directory does not have a "mailacceptinggeneralid" attribute, but I
do have a "nGWObjectID" that correlates to the GroupWise user ID. I'm g
Large health care enterprise, ~6500 users on Novell Groupwise. We've
been using SA on SusE with AmavisD, SARE, Razor, etc for two years (came
from Guinievere on NT). ~20M inbound SMTP connections per year, ~65-68%
spam/viruses, and we're blissfully happy with the SA setup.
In fact, despite the vol
>>> "Jean-Paul Natola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/6/2005 10:01 AM >>>
> I would like to report the IP this one came from BUT , I would like to make
> sure its not some innocent person, that was used as a relay vicitm
You mean some poor "innocent person", who has not kept their PC up to date,
hasn'
I've been running SA as our main inbound SMTP gateway in front of our GroupWise
system for about 18 months now. I process, filter, and quarantine for the whole
enterprise and do not offer individual user control. I use postfix, amavisd, SA
w/ Bayes, RDJ, Razor, some minimal SMTP-level RBLs, CA
Don't know if it's related, but I'm seeing a SIGNIFICANT increase in
SMTP REJECTs, something to the tune of a 10- to 15-fold increase. I
started seeing it simultaneously on both my primary and secondary boxes,
starting around 7:AM EST yesterday (Thursday). I log RBL rejects as
'spam' so this is som
Yep, I'm doing it, and yep I know I need to write it up for wiki.
In a nutshell, I use AmavisD with Postfix, and have Amavis quarantine
kills to a discrete account. Within that account, I created a GW shared
folder for users to move spams into (I review quarantines on occasion
myself for hams). I
> combined.njabl.org
> list.dsbl.org
> sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
Quite successfully, I might add. I haven't had a legitimate complaint
in over 8 weeks (knock on wood), with about 55,000 SMTP connection
attempts per work day...
>>> For the sake of spam/virus elimination, I wouldn't say that there IS
a "standard" in add-ons.
Fair enough... I'm using Suse Linux server 8.1, Postfix, Amavis-d, SA
2.64, Razor, Rules_Du_Jour (most of them, but not all), SpamCop URI, and
manual Bayes learning (via IMAP and a shared folder). Thi
I've noticed some spam getting through over the last few days; the only
common thread is that it *appears* as if my header info is not replacing
some that already exists in the email. To further clarify, the
"X-Spam-Status:" and "X-Spam-Level:" are there, and even the subject
line was edited with "
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/31/HNspammerstudy_1.html
> Did you read the end of the article? SPF prevents forgery, not spam.
It's
> still valuable even if spammers use it.
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how does this differ from
maintaining valid forward and reverse DNS en
14 matches
Mail list logo
