OMG. Thanks a ton for this perfect example why HTML mail sucks bleep.
Not only did your $MUA [1] allow you to write your response indented as
if it where written by me. It also managed to gray-out the first line of
your response. Not the second one, mind you. And injected an HTML br tag
arbitraril
>>With Debian, it's /etc/default/spamassassin -- or, again, the init
>>script directly. Also see my previous post. It *has* been changed in one
>>of these places.
Excellent and thanks again :-)
Keith
2010/10/29 Karsten Bräckelmann
> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 00:17 +0100, Keith De Souza wrote:
> > I'm pretty new to spamassassin and recently been asked to change the
> > flag timeout-child to 180 seconds, its currently set to to 60.
>
> >>The spamd default is 300. See 'man spamd'. Why has this been
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 00:28 +0100, Keith De Souza wrote:
> > On 29 October 2010 00:19, Gary Smith wrote:
> > > Check /etc/sysconfig/spamassassin config file
> Thanks for your swift response, unfortunately I dont seem to have the
> sysconfig directory.
> If it helps, the linux distro running is Deb
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 00:17 +0100, Keith De Souza wrote:
> I'm pretty new to spamassassin and recently been asked to change the
> flag timeout-child to 180 seconds, its currently set to to 60.
The spamd default is 300. See 'man spamd'. Why has this been changed in
the first place?
Btw, whoever kn
>>On 29 October 2010 00:19, Gary Smith wrote:
> >>Check /etc/sysconfig/spamassassin config file
Hi Gary,
Thanks for your swift response, unfortunately I dont seem to have the
sysconfig directory.
If it helps, the linux distro running is Debian Lenny. Any more thoughts?
Many thanks
Keith
On 05/03/2008 5:44 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 02:44:02PM +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
>> On a new mailserver with 8Gb ram and 2xdual-core CPU's we get regular
>> messages in the log:
>>
>> Feb 28 12:52:43 mail2 spamd[32558]: prefork: child states: BIBBB
>> Feb 28 12:52:44 mail2
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 02:44:02PM +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
> On a new mailserver with 8Gb ram and 2xdual-core CPU's we get regular
> messages in the log:
>
> Feb 28 12:52:43 mail2 spamd[32558]: prefork: child states: BIBBB
> Feb 28 12:52:44 mail2 spamd[459]: rules: failed to run TVD_STOCK1 test
Bret Miller wrote:
Yesterday (at least that's when it was noticed), we started having timeout
issues with SpamAssassin again. My average scan time went from 8.5 seconds
last week and the week before to 20.5 seconds yesterday with many messages
(primarily ham) running near the 120 second range. Wh
Jean-Paul Natola wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I was just checking headers on messages that were flagged ( by my own rules
> in outlook) and I'm curious as to what exactly it means
>
I dono, what do your outlook rules do?
> _cbl.abuseat.org_TIMEOUT ,
>__dnsbl.njabl.org_TIMEOUT , __sbl.sp
Jean-Paul Natola wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I was just checking headers on messages that were flagged ( by my own rules
> in outlook) and I'm curious as to what exactly it means
>
I dono, what do your outlook rules do?
> _cbl.abuseat.org_TIMEOUT ,
>__dnsbl.njabl.org_TIMEOUT , __sbl.spam
Josh Trutwin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:16:51 -0400
"Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Josh Trutwin wrote:
I've recently had a server experience some really slow spam
processing - I'm not sure what's going on but I notice a lot of
timeouts in the mail log:
Aug 18 09:20:21 www
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:16:51 -0400
"Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josh Trutwin wrote:
> > I've recently had a server experience some really slow spam
> > processing - I'm not sure what's going on but I notice a lot of
> > timeouts in the mail log:
> >
> > Aug 18 09:20:21 www sp
Josh Trutwin wrote:
I've recently had a server experience some really slow spam
processing - I'm not sure what's going on but I notice a lot of
timeouts in the mail log:
Aug 18 09:20:21 www spamd[27673]: timeout with empty $@
at /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.4/Mail/SpamAssassin/Timeout.pm line
182,
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:40:16 -0400
Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I keep getting a timeout going to www.spamassassin.org. And the
> spamassassin.apache.org site as well.
>
> Anyone else?
>
> Chris Santerre
Maybe it's *you* having a problem?
--
Raquel
===
>-Original Message-
>From: Martin Huber
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 12:49 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: timeout www.spamassasin.org ?
>
>
>Chris Santerre wrote:
>
>> I keep getting a timeout go
Dave Stern - Former Rocket Scientist wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Chris Santerre wrote:
>
>> I keep getting a timeout going to www.spamassassin.org. And the
>> spamassassin.apache.org site as well.
>>
>> Anyone else?
>
> Keep trying. You'll get in eventually. SA is a victim of its own
> success
Chris Santerre wrote:
I keep getting a timeout going to www.spamassassin.org. And the
spamassassin.apache.org site as well.
Anyone else?
It gave me timeouts as well a few minutes ago, but now it seems to work
again. Looks like they redesigned the page.
--
Martin
--
The From: and Reply-To: addre
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Chris Santerre wrote:
I keep getting a timeout going to www.spamassassin.org. And the
spamassassin.apache.org site as well.
Anyone else?
Keep trying. You'll get in eventually. SA is a victim of its own success
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- generated by /dev/dave -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/23/2004
10:40:16 AM:
> I keep getting a timeout going to www.spamassassin.org. And the
> spamassassin.apache.org site as well.
>
> Anyone else?
>
> Chris Santerre
> System Admin and SARE Ninja
> http://www.rulesemporium.com
> http://www.surbl.org
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 10:40 AM
> To: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
> Subject: timeout www.spamassasin.org ?
>
>
> I keep getting a timeout going to www.spamassassin.org. And
> the spamassassin.apache.org s
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Mike Loiterman wrote:
I periodically get these errors in my log and when I do the messages are not
scanned.
What's going on and how do I stop it?
This isn't an SA issue. It has to do with how your MTA deals with your
LDA (probably procmail)
Make sure that the LDA doesn't genera
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 01:17:55PM -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> Hrmmm, a good feature in a future version would be the ability to grow
> this number dynamically up to some hard-and-fast high limit.
Yeah. The first step was going from the previous "fork() per incoming
message" model
On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 12:17, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> Hrmmm, a good feature in a future version would be the ability to grow
> this number dynamically up to some hard-and-fast high limit.
This is the way that I am seeing mimedefang-multiplexor work. Have you
looked at MIMEDefang?
Ale
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Additionally, Im seeing PAGES of spamc when I do a ps aux|grep spam:
That can definitely happen if you don't have enough spamd processes for
the number of requests (or if the spamd
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> Additionally, Im seeing PAGES of spamc when I do a ps aux|grep spam:
That can definitely happen if you don't have enough spamd processes for
the number of requests (or if the spamd processes running are all doing
somethin
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
More on this:
I'm seeing an oddness in that each message seemingly has two procmail
processes atached to it (snippets from ps aux):
kimry 2543 0.0 0.1 1208 832 ?? I12:50PM 0:00.00
procmail -f [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Y -a kimm
27 matches
Mail list logo
