On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, RW wrote:
I do wonder whether there's any real-basis to the idea that autoexpiry
isn't "industrial-strength". I don't use expiry any more, but when I
did, it didn't seem like a big deal at 200,000 tokens, and it's O(N) so
millions of tokens shouldn't be too bad either.
I
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:54:20 -0500
Jeff Mincy wrote:
> You have an exclusive lock when doing expiration. Expiration
> presumably takes longer on larger volumes, but it is still pretty
> fast. Running expiration daily or weekly should be more than
> sufficient.
AFAIK the exclusive lock is only
Hi,
Thanks for the information on bayes and sa-learn. Very helpful.
Best,
Alex
> I suppose you could take the ntokens value before, and subtract it
> from the after value to see how many tokens were expired, right? It
> would be interesting to see how many tokens are expired on a regular
>
From: Alex
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 21:13:24 -0500
> sa-learn --dump magic gives:
> 0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db
version
> 0.000 0 57538 0 non-token data: nspam
> 0.000 0 74876
Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bill Landry [mailto:b...@inetmsg.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 12:42 PM
>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: About upgrading
>>
>> LuKreme wrote:
>>&
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Landry [mailto:b...@inetmsg.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 12:42 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: About upgrading
>
> LuKreme wrote:
> > On 9-Jan-2010, at 21:23, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
> >
LuKreme wrote:
> On 9-Jan-2010, at 21:23, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
>
>> It's the number of seconds since the epoch (Jan 1, 1970). One easy way to
>> convert it to a readable time is
>>
>> # perl -e 'print scalar localtime 1263044805, "\n"'
>> Sat Jan 9 08:46:45 2010
Or even simpler:
perl -l
On 9-Jan-2010, at 21:23, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
> It's the number of seconds since the epoch (Jan 1, 1970). One easy way to
> convert it to a readable time is
>
> # perl -e 'print scalar localtime 1263044805, "\n"'
> Sat Jan 9 08:46:45 2010
% date -r 1263044805
Sat Jan 9 06:46:45 MST 2
On 9-Jan-2010, at 07:07, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> LuKreme writes:
>
>> I think he (she?)
>
> He. Cecilia and Cecile are female, but Cecil is male. Think about Cecil
> B. DeMill.
I thought I was referring to Kai, which can go either way. I know Cecil is a
male name.
--
Wally: That's my nickn
Jeff Mincy writes:
>But it does not seem to be interesting in my situation.
>First my code has to grow from:
>sa-learn --${typeStr} ${HOME}/Maildir/.SpamDir.${dirStr}/cur/
>to:
>for i in ${HOME}/Maildir/.SpamDir.${dirStr}/cur/*; do
>spamc -L ${typeStr} <${i
--Original Message-
> From: Alex [mailto:mysqlstud...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 9:13 PM
> To: SA Mailing list
> Subject: Re: About upgrading
>
> Hi,
>
> > sa-learn --dump magic gives:
> > 0.000 0 3 0 n
Hi,
> sa-learn --dump magic gives:
> 0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
> 0.000 0 57538 0 non-token data: nspam
> 0.000 0 74876 0 non-token data: nham
> 0.000 0 166338
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:24:56 +0100
Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> Jeff Mincy writes:
>
> >I upgraded from 3.0.4 to 3.2.5. I have the feeling that sa-learn
> > takes more time with 3.2.5 as it took with 3.0.4. Can this be true?
> >
> >It is not a problem, because it is done by cron-tab, bu
From: Cecil Westerhof
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:24:56 +0100
Jeff Mincy writes:
>I upgraded from 3.0.4 to 3.2.5. I have the feeling that sa-learn takes
>more time with 3.2.5 as it took with 3.0.4. Can this be true?
>
>It is not a problem, because it is
Jeff Mincy writes:
>I upgraded from 3.0.4 to 3.2.5. I have the feeling that sa-learn takes
>more time with 3.2.5 as it took with 3.0.4. Can this be true?
>
>It is not a problem, because it is done by cron-tab, but I am just
>curious.
>
> You can use spamc -L spam/ham to learn
From: Cecil Westerhof
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:39:59 +0100
Cecil Westerhof writes:
> I did the upgrade. It took some time and there was a slight problem with
> permissions, but it looks like a successful upgrade. I only changed
> /dev/null to a real mailbox, because of
LuKreme writes:
> I think he (she?)
He. Cecilia and Cecile are female, but Cecil is male. Think about Cecil
B. DeMill.
--
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof
Cecil Westerhof writes:
> I did the upgrade. It took some time and there was a slight problem with
> permissions, but it looks like a successful upgrade. I only changed
> /dev/null to a real mailbox, because of the 2010 problem. When something
> like this happens again I now can recover those e-m
Kai Schaetzl writes:
>> you have changed WHAT???
>
> He means he uses procmail and used to send all spam to /dev/null.
That is right. I also made the following script:
#!/usr/bin/env bash
# When --no-filename is not an accepted parameter for grep use -h
# When --max-count=1 is not a
On 9-Jan-2010, at 04:31, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> Kai Schaetzl writes:
>>
>> I only changed /dev/null to a real mailbox,
> you have changed WHAT???
I think he (she?) meant that the local delivery for certain spam-thresholds was
set to /dev/null and that's been changed to a real mailbo
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote on Sat, 9 Jan 2010 12:31:26 +0100:
> you have changed WHAT???
He means he uses procmail and used to send all spam to /dev/null.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
> Kai Schaetzl writes:
> > There's always a document about updating from the various old versions,
> > read it and you will be prepared for most problems. But your SA is
> > *really* old, expect some minor config problems.
On 06.01.10 02:57, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> I did the upgrade. It took s
Kai Schaetzl writes:
> There's always a document about updating from the various old versions,
> read it and you will be prepared for most problems. But your SA is
> *really* old, expect some minor config problems.
I did the upgrade. It took some time and there was a slight problem with
permis
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
There's always a document about updating from the various old versions,
read it and you will be prepared for most problems. But your SA is
*really* old, expect some minor config problems.
Kai
Hy,
Thanks for your advice but I have already read the UPGRADE file.
We are
There's always a document about updating from the various old versions,
read it and you will be prepared for most problems. But your SA is
*really* old, expect some minor config problems.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On 05.01.10 17:51, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> After the scare about the 2010 problem, it was found that there was no
> problem, but that was because an old version of SpamAssassin was used
> (3.0.4). The web-site says it is not a big problem to upgrade to the
> latest version. But in how far is this
26 matches
Mail list logo
