On 1/24/2015 11:09 AM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
Thanks. But no recent entries in the archive might mean an issue with
the list. IIRC there was some discussion/warning about moving.
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/201501.mbox/browser
shows 219 emails this month with so
>>> On 1/17/2015 at 9:22 PM, cool hand luke
>>> wrote:
> On 01/17/2015 03:59 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>> Just checking.
>>
>
> From http://www.list.org/mailman-member/node25.html:
>
> "7.6 I don't seem to be getting mail from the lists. What should I do?
>
> There are a few common reasons
On 01/17/2015 03:59 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
Just checking.
From http://www.list.org/mailman-member/node25.html:
"7.6 I don't seem to be getting mail from the lists. What should I do?
There are a few common reasons for this:
No one has sent any mail to the list(s) you're on for a little
>> Since about 18.00 yesterday, there seems to be a problem
>with retrieving
>> rules from http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/.cf. When I
>> retrieve any rule, I get the following HTML on the front,
>which causes
>> SA lint to fail. I have tried several rulesets and several different
>> hosts
Nick Leverton said:
> Since about 18.00 yesterday, there seems to be a problem with retrieving
> rules from http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/.cf. When I
> retrieve any rule, I get the following HTML on the front, which causes
> SA lint to fail. I have tried several rulesets and several differen
>> Perhaps something like:
>>
>> - a higher priority MX is up
>> - the mail was delivered from a secondary MX with little or no delay
Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My concern was primarily for the secondary, where you don't know the delay
> until you forward. Are you saying that
--On Sunday, September 05, 2004 2:15 PM -0700 Daniel Quinlan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's also not just enough to ping the higher priority MX peers because
the spam checker might be running on the primary MX only so it would
only receive delayed mail from the backup MXes once it was back up.
P
Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, but by my quick test here it would help a bit. 0.22% of my spam and
> 9% of my missed spam was sent via my secondary MX.
Oops, that 0.22% is the number of _missed_ spam messages that hit the
rule out of all of my spam. It's about 8% of my spam ov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes:
> Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Has anyone written a plugin for SA3 that pings the higher-priority MX
> > peers for a domain and boosts the spam score if they're up?
>
> No, but by my quick test here it woul
Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has anyone written a plugin for SA3 that pings the higher-priority MX
> peers for a domain and boosts the spam score if they're up?
No, but by my quick test here it would help a bit. 0.22% of my spam and
9% of my missed spam was sent via my secondary
10 matches
Mail list logo
