On 04.08.09 16:39, Stefan Malte Schumacher wrote:
> And it seems AWL really is the problem. Here are the relevant passages from
> another Email, which only got enough points to be identified as Spam because
> it was both in DCC and Razor.
>
> 5.0 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/
>AWL. Obviously, it counters the custom scores, based on the sender's
>history. And it seems, the sores have been really low in the past.
> spamassassin -t < sample
> What does that say at the bottom of the output, for this sample?
Inhaltsanalyse im Detail: (8.3 Punkte, 5.0 benötigt)
Pkte R
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 18:15 -0700, Stefan Malte Schumacher wrote:
> > Evidence that it's not working? Show us some SA headers. In this case, a
> > spam sample that triggered DCC, cause the Report header does show the
> > rule's score.
Hmm, I wasn't clear enough. :) I meant an identified spam, whe
> score RAZOR2_CECK 5.0
Yes, I have seen my mistake (after sending the email). But the problem with
DCC persists and in that case I was even able to spell a simple
three-word-rule correctly. I am going to post another example with DCC as
soon as possible.
Bye
Stefan
--
View this message in c
>> I have tried adding the appropriate lines, which I believe should be
>> "score DCC_CHECK 5.0" if I want all emails which "pass" the DCC-Check
>> to get 5 points. Unfortunately this is not working, neither for DCC
>> nor for Razor.
>Yes, that should do it.
>Evidence that it's not working? Show
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 19:30 -0700, Stefan Malte Schumacher wrote:
> Hello
A Nabble user with a name. Hooray! :)
> :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> | spamassassin
I suggest running the spamd daemon, and then change that to call spamc
rather than plain spamassassin. That eliminates the start-up penalty f
You have configured amavisd-new to tell SA not to run network tests. If you
want amavisd-new to stop telling SA not to run network tests, set:
$sa_local_tests_only = 0;
Gary V
Sorry, I didn't see the other posts, so this is redundant. Make sure you
reload amavisd-new after making changes to a
My network tests are not implemented on my server.
If I run spamassassin manually from command line on a message I see the
network
filters in play but when I examine messages that have gone through my
Xserve no network tests
are performed. I checked /etc/amavisd.conf and the line with
'sa_l
Quoting Kelsey Forsythe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I meant (and I just checked) 'sa_local_tests_only' is set to 0.
> But the network tests still are not implemented.
Make sure it's also not commented out. Some installations have it commented out
by default.
Jeff C.
Crap.Sorry about that.
I meant (and I just checked) 'sa_local_tests_only' is set to 0.
But the network tests still are not implemented.
Regards,
Kelsey
On Sep 2, 2007, at 7:39 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
Quoting Kelsey Forsythe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
My network tests are not implemented on my server
Quoting Kelsey Forsythe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> My network tests are not implemented on my server.
> If I run spamassassin manually from command line on a message I see
> the network
> filters in play but when I examine messages that have gone through my
> Xserve no network tests
> are performed.
On 7/13/2006 11:06 AM, Ramprasad wrote:
So what is the best way to reduce network traffic. We are already
getting the sbl-xbl lists from spamhaus so as to serve those lists
locally , can I get any other lists locally ? Commercial agreements
also are ok.
Many/most lists will provide rsync ac
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 11:17 -0400, Craig Morrison wrote:
> Ramprasad wrote:
> > Hi,
> > SA works fine , for the quiet large setup that we have. ( we get upto
> > 200k mails an hour at peak times )
> > But I notice it is too network dependent. A little problem with the
> > network and all hell
Ramprasad wrote:
Hi,
SA works fine , for the quiet large setup that we have. ( we get upto
200k mails an hour at peak times )
But I notice it is too network dependent. A little problem with the
network and all hell breaks loose. Mailq shoots up and SA starts timing
out.
Probably because I
Ramprasad wrote:
Hi,
SA works fine , for the quiet large setup that we have. ( we get upto
200k mails an hour at peak times )
But I notice it is too network dependent. A little problem with the
network and all hell breaks loose. Mailq shoots up and SA starts timing
out.
Probably because I
On Friday, March 18, 2005, 8:40:45 AM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> 3) experiment to see which specific network tests are slow by setting
> their score to 0 one at a time.
In particular try setting the score of URIBL_SBL to 0
since its style of SBL lookups is significantly slower than
SURBL lookups, and
Daniel A. de Araujo wrote:
Hi guys,
I have the Spam Assassin 2.63 with Amavis installed in my box and now I am
trying to enable network tests with SpamcopURI.
Its working but the delivery of the messages is very slow when network tests
are enabled, so I´d to disable it.
Any ideas to make the delive
> how much RAM is recommended for a box that does nothing besides
> Spamassassin?
It depends on your mail load. But in general, you can't have too much.
Loren
Most people that have seen a slowdown in 3.x seem to be due to thrashing
due
to larger memory usage.
how much RAM is recommended for a box that does nothing besides
Spamassassin?
Frank M. Cook
Association Computer Services, Inc.
http://www.acsplus.com
> the reason I suspected the net tests was because the problem happened
after
> we upgraded from version 2. we were keeping up before. I was thinking it
> was the net tests because I wasn't doing them in 2. I wasn't aware of
other
> changes from 2 to 3 that could be the cause. now if two used f
I would try to figure out why your net tests are so slow. Or maybe first
figure out (if you haven't already) whether it is really the net tests
that
are slowing you down. Maybe you are thrashing, and more memory, or
running
fewer spamd children, or having them expire after fewer connections wou
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 4) Maybe a local dns cache
>
> > I only have 500 mailboxes so I can't be processing anything like the
100k
> of
> > messages a day that your faq says would require local dns.
>
> Keeping network tests is a real good idea. Currently SURBL seems to be
one
On Friday, January 21, 2005, 8:44:18 PM, Frank Cook wrote:
>> Depends how you're starting SpamAssassin. Various flags are
>> described at:
>>
>> http://www.surbl.org/faq.html#nettest
> thanks. that faq helps. I take it from your email address, Jeff, that
> you're tied in with this plan. what
> you're tied in with this plan. what would you recommend? I'm seeing
> messages take 30 to 45 seconds to process. that's way too long. should I
> 1) use -L
I wouldn't recommend it, but you can run without net tests. You have to
spend more time on making sure you have good rules though.
>
Depends how you're starting SpamAssassin. Various flags are
described at:
http://www.surbl.org/faq.html#nettest
thanks. that faq helps. I take it from your email address, Jeff, that
you're tied in with this plan. what would you recommend? I'm seeing
messages take 30 to 45 seconds to process.
On Friday, January 21, 2005, 7:35:09 AM, Frank Cook wrote:
>
> how is this controlled in version 3? We had the network tests turned off in
> version 2 but after upgrading to version 3 it is taking 45 seconds to
> process each message and the reports show network testing is being done even
> thou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Freitag, 21. Januar 2005 16:35 schrieb Frank M. Cook:
>
>
> how is this controlled in version 3? We had the network tests turned off
> in version 2 but after upgrading to version 3 it is taking 45 seconds to
> process each message and the reports
Am Mittwoch 20 Oktober 2004 04:46 schrieb Robert Menschel:
> Monday, October 18, 2004, 3:27:58 PM, Theo wrote:
>
> TVD> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:19:18AM +0200, Dietmar Lippold wrote:
> >> * Which tests (SYMBOLIC_TEST_NAMEs) are not used when I run
> >> spamassassin or spamd which option "-L"?
>
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:19:18AM +0200, Dietmar Lippold wrote:
> * Which tests (SYMBOLIC_TEST_NAMEs) are not used when I run
>spamassassin or spamd which option "-L"?
any that have a "tflags net" set.
> * How can I disable network tests by entries in user_prefs (e.g. when
>I use spamc
On Monday, October 11, 2004 6:48 PM, Bill Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mike Brodbelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
[...]
>> Aha. Whoever put together the package on backports.org omitted that
>> file from the docs I'd still contend it should be in UPGRADE
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Brodbelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bill Landry wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Mike Brodbelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > Did you happen to check the INSTALL document that comes with the
> > distribution?:
> >
> > - Net::DNS(fr
Bill Landry wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mike Brodbelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Did you happen to check the INSTALL document that comes with the
> distribution?:
>
> - Net::DNS(from CPAN)
Aha. Whoever put together the package on backports.org omitted that file
from
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Brodbelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 05:08:01PM +0100, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
> >
> >>network tests. It would be nice if it logged a message to this effect
> >>via syslog at startup - would certainly have saved m
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 05:08:01PM +0100, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
>
>>network tests. It would be nice if it logged a message to this effect
>>via syslog at startup - would certainly have saved me a few hours of
>
>
> We can't log a message everytime people don't read the do
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 05:08:01PM +0100, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
> network tests. It would be nice if it logged a message to this effect
> via syslog at startup - would certainly have saved me a few hours of
We can't log a message everytime people don't read the documentation. ;)
--
Randomly Gener
Candee Vaglica wrote:
> Make sure Net::DNS is installed and available
>
Thanks for the suggestion. Sod's law being what it is, I found the
problem shortly after sending the original message. I'll post the
details here in case anyone has the same issue...
I used the SA 3 bacport from http://www.b
Make sure Net::DNS is installed and available
-Original Message-
From: Mike Brodbelt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 5:17 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Network tests not working after upgrade to SA 3
Hi,
I've been happily running SpamAssassin on
At 01:07 PM 9/2/2004 +0300, Alexander Piavka wrote:
Now a couple of days ago on one hosts
the network tests stoped working, while nothing was changed
and both hosts are open in the firewall.
Any ideas what could be the reason?
First check for gross errors:
spamassassin --lint
Then try reso
38 matches
Mail list logo
