On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 04:30 PM 10/13/2004, scohen wrote:
> Your error is in the bayes_auto_learn line.. you need to specify a 1 or a 0
> after it.
>
Thanks! I can't believe I missed that.
Steve Cohen
I had this issue before where I got an error like this:
"Argument "" isn't numeric in addition (+) at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf/Parser.pm line 572."
I understand that you are supposed to change the rewrite subject line to
rewrite_header, which I did. My local.cf file i
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Chris Santerre wrote:
>
>
> >-Original Message-----
> >From: scohen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 4:35 PM
> >To: Chris Santerre
> >Cc: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
> >Subject: RE: scan times up!
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Chris Santerre wrote:
> If anyone remembers this thread, I have more feedback.
>
> After disabling Bayes, AWL, and reducing the system to 4 children, I now am
> running average scan times of 3.5 seconds. Much better!
>
> You devs are some seriously sexy coders!
>
> --Chris (B
When I run spamassassin -D --lint I am noticing this message:
"config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line, skipping: rewrite_subject 0
Argument "" isn't numeric in addition (+) at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf/Parser.pm line 572."
Spamassasin still seems to work though. I
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> If it's a system-wide install, then you should find your config file (on a
> default install of spamassassin it's /etc/mail/spamassassin/local/cf I
> believe -- but DOUBLE CHECK).
>
I believe it is /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf not local/cf
I thought it was Guns kill people, people kill puppies and OMG we need
to afirmitively abort the pope's poison jello.
Steve Cohen
Top posting to make girlz hot!
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Chris Santerre wrote:
> I figured is you were gonna start another group flame war, we should do it
> correctl
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Chris Blaise wrote:
>
> The biggest performance benefit you'll see is if you use spamd. The
> pre-forking of children makes an incredible amount of difference.
>
> We ran tests with networking and bayes disabled and the improvement
> was over 2x.
>
> Chris
>
Than
I've read through the benefits to SA 3.0 but I don't see any mention of
performance. I was wondering:
A) Does SA 3.0 use less memory/CPU then SA 2.64?
B) Does SA 3.0 take less time to decide if an email is spam then SA 2.64?
C) Does SA 3.0 do a better job of identifying spam with its default
confi
