At 05:55 PM 2/26/2005, Justin Mason wrote:
I'm thinking it might be worthwhile setting up a section of the FAQ
for MailScanner users, similarly for amavisd users, etc. with these
type of answers.
I'd say pretty much all MailScanner sites with bayes running
would need to use that cronjob tactic.
Agr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler writes:
> At 08:57 PM 2/25/2005, jdow wrote:
>
> >Sometimes SA may time out. If it does there are no SA markups in the
> >messages. Makes it easy to test for.
>
> True, this can happen when using MailScanner..
>
> Although, as it turns
At 08:57 PM 2/25/2005, jdow wrote:
Sometimes SA may time out. If it does there are no SA markups in the
messages. Makes it easy to test for.
True, this can happen when using MailScanner..
Although, as it turns out, FN's aren't the poster's concern.
As for SA timeouts under MailScanner, they are usu
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Justin Mason wrote:
> So you're seeing a varying amount of ham, peaking during work hours,
> but a constant flow of spam?
>
> That's about right -- spamware never sleeps, whereas legitimate
> user-to-user mail is sent when people are around to send it ;)
>
> - --j.
This
riday 16:14
Subject: Re: Strange SpamAssassin Statistical Performance
>
> That's MailScanner; I'm suggesting that if you look to see if it was
> processed through SA or not (MS might be skipping if no processes are
> available, or might be using the wrong queue, or any number of oth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Justin Mason wrote:
> > So you're seeing a varying amount of ham, peaking during work hours,
> > but a constant flow of spam?
> >
> > That's about right -- spamware never sleeps, whereas legitimate
> > user-to-user mail is
So you're seeing a varying amount of ham, peaking during work hours,
but a
constant flow of spam?
That's about right -- spamware never sleeps, whereas legitimate
user-to-user mail is sent when people are around to send it ;)
You know that is quite an excellent, refreshing, and logical
observati
Justin Mason wrote:
> So you're seeing a varying amount of ham, peaking during work hours,
> but a constant flow of spam?
>
> That's about right -- spamware never sleeps, whereas legitimate
> user-to-user mail is sent when people are around to send it ;)
>
> - --j.
This causes one of my worries
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
So you're seeing a varying amount of ham, peaking during work hours, but a
constant flow of spam?
That's about right -- spamware never sleeps, whereas legitimate
user-to-user mail is sent when people are around to send it ;)
- --j.
Jerome Cartagena
That's MailScanner; I'm suggesting that if you look to see if it was
processed through SA or not (MS might be skipping if no processes are
available, or might be using the wrong queue, or any number of other
things could be going wrong).
On 2/25/2005 6:51 PM, Jerome Cartagena wrote:
> MailScanner
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 02:04 PM 2/25/2005, Jerome Cartagena wrote:
The main reason I believe this is a performance issue is the strange
flat line that is demonstrated by the graph. Although it concerns me
that I get much more HAM than SPAM (I believe current industry
standards report 80+% spam
MailScanner does alter the Raw headers of each mail message and I can
verify that each message does not get delivered to the user's INBOX
until it has been processed.
~Jerome Cartagena
On Feb 25, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
On 2/25/2005 2:00 PM, Jerome Cartagena wrote:
according to th
Sorry for the confusion.
The blue lines represent HAM "clean" messages. While the green lines
represent SPAM.
~Jerome Cartagena
On Feb 25, 2005, at 1:22 PM, jdow wrote:
What do the colors mean, Jerome?
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Jerome Cartagena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ok. Here are
What do the colors mean, Jerome?
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Jerome Cartagena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ok. Here are the graph details of SpamAssassin performance:
>
>
> spam_clean_day: (5 min avg)
> Max spam: 1304.0 msgs Average spam: 489.0 msgs Current spam: 516.0 msgs
> Max c
On 2/25/2005 2:00 PM, Jerome Cartagena wrote:
> according to the graphs, the number of detected spam has a steady upper
> limit while the actual number of undetected spam fluctuates wildly.
Can you tell if the undetected spam is getting processed (I like to tag
all mail regardless of score).
>
At 02:04 PM 2/25/2005, Jerome Cartagena wrote:
The main reason I believe this is a performance issue is the strange flat
line that is demonstrated by the graph. Although it concerns me that I
get much more HAM than SPAM (I believe current industry standards report
80+% spam traffic), I simply c
hello
What makes you think this is a performance issue? The fact that you're
getting more HAM than SPAM? or what?
The main reason I believe this is a performance issue is the strange
flat line that is demonstrated by the graph. Although it concerns me
that I get much more HAM than SPAM (I belie
Hello
There are 86400 seconds in a 24-hour day, and if it takes you 10
seconds
per message (high but possible with large number of remote tests) with
just one process (unlikely) then you are going to be capped at 8,640
messages per day at flat-rate (nobody gets perfectly-distributed
traffic
patte
At 01:43 PM 2/25/2005, Jerome Cartagena wrote:
spam_clean_day: (5 min avg)
Max spam: 1304.0 msgs Average spam: 489.0 msgsCurrent spam:
516.0 msgs
Max clean: 7224.0 msgs Average clean: 1309.0 msgs Current clean:
1357.0 msgs
Ok, that's better. I know what I'm looking at now.
What ma
Ok. Here are the graph details of SpamAssassin performance:
<>spam_clean_day: (5 min avg)
Max spam: 1304.0 msgs Average spam: 489.0 msgs Current spam: 516.0 msgs
Max clean: 7224.0 msgs Average clean: 1309.0 msgs Current clean: 1357.0
msgs
<>
spam_clean_week: (30 min avg)
Max spam: 2064.0 msgs A
On 2/25/2005 1:28 PM, Jerome Cartagena wrote:
> problem/question is that according to our statistics we are reaching
> some sort of upper bound on spam scanning performance. I have attached
> 2 files to help demonstrate what I am talking about. I am wondering if
> we are hitting some sort of
At 01:28 PM 2/25/2005, Jerome Cartagena wrote:
I am using spamassassin through MailScanner on a University mail server to
help perform spam checks. I am using:
SpamAssassin version 3.0.2
running on Perl version
I have setup some scripts (spam-stats) to generate MRTG stats to help give
us an i
22 matches
Mail list logo
