Kurt
yeah ran into a similar problem with --lint option...not very nice error
messages. Must check bug list one this one...
I'd double check all the syntax for the options against the docs...
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Kurt Buff wrote:
A
At 03:33 PM 11/30/2004, Kurt Buff wrote:
Ran spamassassin --lint as root, and got the following error:
'Argument "" isn't numeric in numeric eq (==) at
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf/Parser.pm line
578.'
Where might I start in trying to correct this?
bayes_use_hapaxes
>
> At 07:24 AM 10/14/2004, BG Mahesh wrote:
>
>
>
> >How do I fix this problem?
>
>
> Remember when the "perl Makefile.pl" warned you that checking network rules
> could cause make test to fail, but you turned them on anyway?
>
Yes, I turned it on. On 3 machines I had installed it witho
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:54:04 +0530 "BG Mahesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I am trying to install SA 3.0 on RedHat linux. During testing the error
> > I get is,
> >
> > % make test
> > [dnsbl test failures]
> >
> > How do I fix this problem?
>
> What does:
>
> perl -e 'use
At 07:24 AM 10/14/2004, BG Mahesh wrote:
How do I fix this problem?
Remember when the "perl Makefile.pl" warned you that checking network rules
could cause make test to fail, but you turned them on anyway?
Check network rules during 'make test' (test scripts may fail due
to network pro
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:54:04 +0530 "BG Mahesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am trying to install SA 3.0 on RedHat linux. During testing the error
> I get is,
>
> % make test
> [dnsbl test failures]
>
> How do I fix this problem?
What does:
perl -e 'use Net::DNS; print $Net::DNS::VERSIO
From: "Kai Schaetzl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mike Zanker wrote on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:52:36 +0100:
>
> > Yes, I am using that, but I thought USER_IN_BLACKLIST related to
> > personal blacklists, not SURBL stuff.
> >
>
> It does not relate to SURBL. It relates to rules, no matter in which *.cf
> file
On 10 October 2004 20:44 +0200 Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
It does not relate to SURBL. It relates to rules, no matter in which
*.cf file they are in /etc/mail/spamassassin. The rulename is
relevant, not the filename.
Ah, OK.
Thanks,
Mike.
Mike Zanker wrote on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:52:36 +0100:
> Yes, I am using that, but I thought USER_IN_BLACKLIST related to
> personal blacklists, not SURBL stuff.
>
It does not relate to SURBL. It relates to rules, no matter in which *.cf
file they are in /etc/mail/spamassassin. The rulename is r
On 10 October 2004 11:24 -0400 Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Are you sure you're not using sa-blacklist.cf from SURBL?
Yes, I am using that, but I thought USER_IN_BLACKLIST related to
personal blacklists, not SURBL stuff.
Mike.
At 07:56 AM 10/10/2004 +0100, Mike Zanker wrote:
On 09 October 2004 18:40 -0400 Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Got me, you have to go hunting around and find out. I have no way to
tell you what's on your box, but I can tell you the entries aren't
from SpamAssassin itself. ;)
I believe
On 09 October 2004 18:40 -0400 Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Got me, you have to go hunting around and find out. I have no way to
tell you what's on your box, but I can tell you the entries aren't
from SpamAssassin itself. ;)
I believe that it is a bug in SA 3.0. This is a fresh ins
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 11:24:19PM +0100, Mike Zanker wrote:
> >There are no default blacklist entries in SpamAssassin.
> Exactly, so where did it come from?
Got me, you have to go hunting around and find out. I have no way to tell you
what's on your box, but I can tell you the entries aren't fro
On 09 October 2004 16:19 -0400 Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Well, yes you do. ;)
I do what?
There are no default blacklist entries in SpamAssassin.
Exactly, so where did it come from?
Mike.
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 09:09:12PM +0100, Mike Zanker wrote:
> scored over 100 because of USER_IN_BLACKLIST. Now, I don't have any
> blacklists defined anywhere
> So, this seems to be a false positive. Anyone else seen it happening?
Well, yes you do. ;) There are no default blacklist entries in
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
In my setup this is not an option, because I run SA as a milter, via
spamass-milter. If every process has to die after the scan, it cannot
pass the results of the scan to Sendmail (at least, this is what
happened after I tried this option, so I kept on
In my setup this is not an option, because I run SA as a milter, via
spamass-milter. If every process has to die after the scan, it cannot
pass the results of the scan to Sendmail (at least, this is what
happened after I tried this option, so I kept on receiving messages
like this:
Oct 4 09:27:55
I had this problem till I set the max per child option to = 1
This caused spamd to kill the process used to scan every msg once it's
done.
Not the best answer I know but it keeps it in check
> Is there a Perl equivalent to the Unix 'setrlimit' or 'ulimit'
> function? (IE something to set the max data size that a process
> is allowed to use).
I use djb's softlimit and supervise my spamd process with daemontools.
I softlimit spamd at 100MB just to prevent childs from running away with
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Jon Trulson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Luis Hernan Otegui wrote:
>>
>> > Well, a weekend update:
>> > Nothing has changed here. I removed EVERYTHING (except for local.cf)
>> > from /etc/mail/spamassassin, and still it chews as much memory as it
>> > could get. I limited t
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Jon Trulson wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Luis Hernan Otegui wrote:
> Well, a weekend update:
> Nothing has changed here. I removed EVERYTHING (except for local.cf)
> from /etc/mail/spamassassin, and still it chews as much memory as it
> could get. I limited the number of childs to
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
Well, a weekend update:
Nothing has changed here. I removed EVERYTHING (except for local.cf)
from /etc/mail/spamassassin, and still it chews as much memory as it
could get. I limited the number of childs to five (removed the -m
switch in the startup scr
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Morris Jones wrote:
I found 3.0 pushing my machine into swapping as well this afternoon -- a
first for me. I stopped and restarted my smtp server and spamd, and it's
back to normal for now.
I'm beginning to think I might be better off running spamassassin in
unique processes in
Is that still broken in 3.0? I thought sure they would have fixed that
blank line parsing problem!
Loren
> I've noticed some technique to avoid running SURBL check.
> There's an appropriate part of spam message:
>
> http://aircraft.com href=
>
> "http://
Well, a weekend update:
Nothing has changed here. I removed EVERYTHING (except for local.cf)
from /etc/mail/spamassassin, and still it chews as much memory as it
could get. I limited the number of childs to five (removed the -m
switch in the startup script), and nothing changed. The only
"improveme
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 02:28:34 -0700, Loren Wilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you seeing any net tests being rul at all?
Yes, but for some reason only on a portion of the messages being processed.
> if not, you need to make
> sure that you have net tests activated, and that SA is happy with
Are you seeing any net tests being rul at all? if not, you need to make
sure that you have net tests activated, and that SA is happy with the
version of Net::DNS (and a few other things) that re required.
If you are seeing SURBL working most of the time but not all, it sounds like
you may have ne
> Just a short note to say a big THANK YOU for SA 3. After I installed and
> restarted, without any additional configuration changes and just by
upgrading
> the bayes database, I am getting under 10 spam a day getting through
> 'unnoticed' as opposed to 60-80 before. I am running without any networ
I have a similar situation, and I have removed all my rule sets. Here is
the output from top
top - 00:35:45 up 1 day, 14:45, 2 users, load average: 2.45, 2.40, 2.48
Tasks: 158 total, 3 running, 154 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
Cpu(s): 1.0% us, 1.6% sy, 97.4% ni, 0.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.
I found 3.0 pushing my machine into swapping as well this afternoon -- a
first for me. I stopped and restarted my smtp server and spamd, and it's
back to normal for now.
I'm beginning to think I might be better off running spamassassin in
unique processes instead of as a daemon. The load time wa
Hence my comments on the OT thread earlier today about the BigEvil
author going mad one day... :)
> -Original Message-
> From: snowjack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 4:20 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: SA 3.0 is e
Loren Wilton wrote:
80M doesn't strike me as unusual for spamd if you have any of the addon
rulesets.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@#&sputter...! Yes, that is too unusual unless you're using
ALL the addon rulesets, including BigEvil, which, I hear, eats pets and
small children when nobody's looking, and sho
> Just a little update, this is what's going on over the server:
>
> 11:59am up 16:12, 1 user, load average: 10,51, 5,30, 2,47
> 151 processes: 144 sleeping, 6 running, 1 zombie, 0 stopped
> CPU states: 6,5% user, 2,1% system, 0,0% nice, 91,3% idle
> Mem: 449484K av, 76K used,5008
BigEvil.cf - it's one of the add-on rulesets available on the net, and one
that is notoriously huge, and thus a heavy consumer of memory. It's also
one Chris Santerre built, so jdow was giving Chris a bit of a ribbing there.
In any event, if you're using any add-on .cf files in
/etc/mail/spama
BigEvil what?
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:21:47 -0700, jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BigEvil.
> {^_-}
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Something is seriously wrong with your setup! Move all cf files except
> > local.cf out of the
> > /etc/mail
BigEvil.
{^_-}
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Something is seriously wrong with your setup! Move all cf files except
> local.cf out of the
> /etc/mail/spamassassin dir and restart spamd. What does it read then?
>
> There is no way spamd should be that l
At 12:23 PM 10/1/2004, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
Additionally, I have to add that I still have one warning when I run
spamassassin --lint, and it seems to come from the standard ruleset:
warning: description for EXCUSE_ES_03 is over 50 chars
Ick. Bad form for a final release..
25_body_tests_es.cf:l
Luis Hernán Otegui said:
> ok, the virus warning issues have been solved, but NOT the fact that I
> have 22 copies of spamd running at the same time, even when I´ve
> limited the number of max children of Sendmail to 20, and each copy of
> spamd weights 21 MB! How can I limit the amount of memory
> --Chris
>
>
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Luis Hernán Otegui [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 11:52 AM
> >To: Chris Santerre
> >Cc: Matt Kettler; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> >Subject: Re: SA 3.0 is e
er 01, 2004 11:52 AM
>To: Chris Santerre
>Cc: Matt Kettler; users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: SA 3.0 is eating up all my memory!!!
>
>
>ok, all I had in the /etc/mail/spamassassin dir was my local.cf and
>the init.pre. I've cleaned the local.cf according to th
>
> There is no way spamd should be that large!!
>
> --Chris
>
>
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Luis Hernán Otegui [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 11:00 AM
> >To: Matt Kettler
> >Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.o
TECTED]
>Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 11:00 AM
>To: Matt Kettler
>Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: SA 3.0 is eating up all my memory!!!
>
>
>Just a little update, this is what's going on over the server:
>
> 11:59am up 16:12, 1 user, load average:
Just a little update, this is what's going on over the server:
11:59am up 16:12, 1 user, load average: 10,51, 5,30, 2,47
151 processes: 144 sleeping, 6 running, 1 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 6,5% user, 2,1% system, 0,0% nice, 91,3% idle
Mem: 449484K av, 76K used,5008K free,
ok, the virus warning issues have been solved, but NOT the fact that I
have 22 copies of spamd running at the same time, even when I´ve
limited the number of max children of Sendmail to 20, and each copy of
spamd weights 21 MB! How can I limit the amount of memory spamd is
chewing?
On Thu, 30 Sep
Jeff Chan wrote on Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:03:34 -0700:
> Stop using BigEvil if you're using SA 3 with network tests.
>
I'd remove "with network tests" from that statement. We don't do any of
the "traditional" network tests (I let it do by sendmail), but we enabled
the URIDNSBL plugin. You can stil
At 07:29 PM 9/30/2004, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
warning: rule 'VIRUS_WARNING_MYDOOM_BNCE' is over 22 chars
lint: 51 issues detected. please rerun with debug enabled for more
information.
I have an antivirus running as a milter, how do I disable the virus
tests in SA, and also, why do I have thi
Well, I can't solve *all* of your problems, but I can help with one of them:
Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
I'm having 51 issues when I run spamassassin
--lint. I've clean the obsolete options from local.cf, but the rest of
the issues come (apparently) from badly defined rules in the local.cf
file, but
-- Forwarded Message ---
From: Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Brodbeck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:07:05 -0700
Subject: Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 7:42:04 AM, David Brodbeck wrote:
> On Wed, 2
>-Original Message-
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 10:31 AM
>To: SpamAssassin Users
>Subject: Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
>
>
>On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 6:46:00 AM, Chuck Campbell wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 26,
On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 6:46:00 AM, Chuck Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 05:03:34PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
>>
>> Stop using BigEvil if you're using SA 3 with network tests.
>>
> More efficiently? What if you are on a slow network connection? Should
> you use the network t
On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 05:03:34PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
>
> Stop using BigEvil if you're using SA 3 with network tests.
>
More efficiently? What if you are on a slow network connection? Should
you use the network tests?
-chuck
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 05:12:32PM -0400, Slava Madrit wrote:
> Basically if you remove the Subject header completely, even though SA
> recognizes that it's spam, it does not mark up the subject with [SPAM] since
> there is no Subject. I tried it with 2.63 and it adds a Subject: header to
> the
> Anyone using SA 3 with network tests enabled, Net::DNS
> installed and URIDNSBL rules active (which they are by
> default in 3.0.0) should stop using BigEvil.
>
> The static domains in BigEvil are now in the SURBL list
> ws.surbl.org which is enabled by default in SA 3.0.0 along
> with all
On Sunday, September 26, 2004, 2:17:40 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> When I upgraded our first systems to
> 3.0 RCs earlier this month I immediately removed bigevil from
> rules_du_jour and switched on SURBL. bigevil consumes the same amount of
> RAM on 2.64 and I think it doesn't really give that mu
Chris Santerre wrote on Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:40:47 -0400:
> It will consume the
> souls of your server, your family, and that cute girl/guy at your local
> coffee shop!
>
Isn't that what "big evil" does? ;-) When I upgraded our first systems to
3.0 RCs earlier this month I immediately removed big
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 06:12:53PM +0100, Anthony Edwards wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 03:04:58AM +0100, Anthony Edwards wrote:
>
> > I removed all SpamAssassin files earlier this evening and re-installed
> > using cpan. With hindsight, I believe I could have simply done what
> > you have su
Kai Schaetzl wrote on Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:34:10 +0200:
> FWIW, the problem seems to have been RC2-specific
>
I spoke to soon, I just needed to wait another day. So it took 15 days to
surface this time. I'm going to open a bug on this if I can't find it on
Bugzilla.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berli
FWIW, the problem seems to have been RC2-specific. Didn't occur after it,
now going from RC4 to RTM next week. Thanks for all the great work!
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winwar
Kris Deugau wrote:
You mean, "like Debian stable", or "like RedHat Enterprise Linux" (and
its clones).Both provide security updates, but (almost) NO
functionality changes.
Debian unstable is "whatever's current" (more or less). Fedora Core
fills the same role for RedHat.
Well, if you want to g
Anthony Edwards wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:37:31PM -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
> > Justin Mason wrote:
> > > Yeah -- this is almost definitely something to do with SuSE's
> > > packaging of either perl (if it uses the defaults from
> > > ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or SpamAssassin itself (if its
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:37:31PM -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Justin Mason wrote:
> > Yeah -- this is almost definitely something to do with SuSE's
> > packaging of either perl (if it uses the defaults from
> > ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or SpamAssassin itself (if its rpm spec moves
> > the file around
On Friday 24 September 2004 08:52 am, Justin Mason wrote:
> Bob Apthorpe writes:
> > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:30:19 -0800 John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > If you are thinking about installing Spamassasin 3.0 PAY ATTENTION:
> > >
> > > If you haven't been reading this list carefully yo
Justin Mason wrote:
> Yeah -- this is almost definitely something to do with SuSE's
> packaging of either perl (if it uses the defaults from
> ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or SpamAssassin itself (if its rpm spec moves
> the file around as Debian does).
Actually, for any "real" package manager (ie, rpm or
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 03:04:58AM +0100, Anthony Edwards wrote:
> I removed all SpamAssassin files earlier this evening and re-installed
> using cpan. With hindsight, I believe I could have simply done what
> you have suggested above. I run a SuSE 8.2 system, and persuading
> manual configurat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bob Apthorpe writes:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:30:19 -0800 John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If you are thinking about installing Spamassasin 3.0 PAY ATTENTION:
> >
> > If you haven't been reading this list carefully you will
> > have m
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:49:48 -0500, Bob Apthorpe wrote
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:30:19 -0800 John Andersen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If you are thinking about installing Spamassasin 3.0 PAY ATTENTION:
> >
> > If you haven't been reading this list carefully you will
> > have missed the f
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:30:19 -0800 John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you are thinking about installing Spamassasin 3.0 PAY ATTENTION:
>
> If you haven't been reading this list carefully you will
> have missed the fact that spamd has been moved
> from /usr/sbin/ to /usr/bin . Howev
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 01:30:19AM -0800, John Andersen wrote:
> If you are thinking about installing Spamassasin 3.0 PAY ATTENTION:
>
> If you haven't been reading this list carefully you will
> have missed the fact that spamd has been moved
> from /usr/sbin/ to /usr/bin . However, the old ve
Hi Thomas Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
you wrote on Friday, 2004-09-24 08:49:31 +0200:
> Hi Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> you wrote on Thursday, 2004-09-23 17:00:08 -0400:
> > NoMailAudit doesn't exist in 3.0. It looks like you're using old modules
> > and/or old scripts.
> >
> > Nuke an
Hi Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
you wrote on Thursday, 2004-09-23 17:00:08 -0400:
> NoMailAudit doesn't exist in 3.0. It looks like you're using old modules
> and/or old scripts.
>
> Nuke anything spamassassin related, then install 3.0.0.
I renamed ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs and /etc/ma
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 09:12:18PM +, Brian L. Gentry wrote:
> The fix is obvious and simple: Shut down spamd, start it from the command
> line: /usr/bin/spamd -c -d . Test it. Once you've verified that it's
> working
> again, modify your spamd startup script to use the new location for
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 02:21:43PM +0200, Thomas Richter wrote:
> I got only clean messages with -1.1
> and in /var/log/messages from spamd:
> Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at
> /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/NoMailAudit.pm line 184.
> Use of
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 01:51:54PM +0100, Anthony Edwards wrote:
> I have also been unable to persuade spamd to add spamassassin headers,
> as per my posting of last night to the list. Running spamassassin, in
> contrast, seems to work properly (which seems to rule out it being a
> local configur
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 02:21:43PM +0200, Thomas Richter wrote:
> hi,
> I got only clean messages with -1.1
> and in /var/log/messages from spamd:
> Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at
> /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/NoMailAudit.pm line 184.
> U
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 01:01:11PM +0200, Thomas Richter wrote:
> Hi,
> after installing over CPAN I got:
> shodan:~ # sa-learn --sync
>
> bayes: bayes db version 2 is not able to be used, aborting!
> at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore/DBM.pm line
> 160.
>
> What to
On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 06:01, Thomas Richter wrote:
> bayes: bayes db version 2 is not able to be used, aborting!
> at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore/DBM.pm line
> 160.
>
> What to do?
Be patient and do not cancel the process?
I got the same message and saw that a c
On Wednesday, September 22, 2004, 2:34:41 PM, Codger Codger wrote:
> I thought SURBL was built in to 3.0 was I mistaken?
Yes, SA 3.0 has built in support for SURBLs, so anyone using
BigEvil should use ws.surbl.org instead and save a huge
amount of SA memory. In other words if you're using 3.0,
do
Hmm..silver lake? Wouldnt it be hacked to pieces by a guy in a hockey
mask?
That's CRYSTAL Lake, not Silver Lake :)
Mike Jackson
I thought SURBL was built in to 3.0 was I mistaken?
On Sep 22, 2004, at 4:40 PM, Chris Santerre wrote:
I just updated Bigevil, which now is 1.25 megs in size. It will
consume the
souls of your server, your family, and that cute girl/guy at your local
coffee shop!
With the release of SA 3.0, for t
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:40:47 -0400
Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just updated Bigevil, which now is 1.25 megs in size. It will
> consume the souls of your server, your family, and that cute
> girl/guy at your local coffee shop!
>
> With the release of SA 3.0, for the love of all t
Quoting Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I just updated Bigevil, which now is 1.25 megs in size. It will consume the
souls of your server, your family, and that cute girl/guy at your local
coffee shop!
With the release of SA 3.0, for the love of all that is digital, use SURBL!!
Tell your ISP's t
Daniel Quinlan wrote on 11 Sep 2004 13:55:08 -0700:
> If you haven't already, please file a bug.
>
No, I didn't file a bug yet. It happened twice during the testing of RC2
on the RC2 machine. It didn't happen on the RC3 machine. I applied RC4
three days ago to both machines and am still waiting
"Kai Schaetzl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For about a week I've been seeing SA time-outs in MailScanner (120 sec
> time-out) and on investigating it seems the reason are extremely large
> bayes journal files. I ran "sa-learn -D --sync" and that took quite long,
> about two minutes. As I unde
83 matches
Mail list logo
