On 09/05/2012 11:28 PM, Tom Bartel wrote:
A tad shorter?
RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED Return Path Certified - Contact:cert...@returnpath.net
RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE Return Path Safe - Contact:safe...@returnpath.net
As per suggestions and KAM comments, committed:
describe RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE Sender in Retur
With no examples in corpora and good s/o's, i think mass check is likely to
score the rule high which brings us back to the same point. I did consider that
though.
Regards,
KAM
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
06.09.2012 00:30, Kevin A. McGrail kirjoitti:
> On 9/5/2012 5:22 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Hello,
for technical reasons I have no Mail::SPF::Query. So my SA has no "view" to the
spf settings of an incomming mail.
But I run an SPF-Milter in front of SA without Mail::SPF::Query. That Filter
adds an Received-SPF header to the mails but do not reject.
Is it possible to use the result of
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:08:32 +0200
Andreas Schulze wrote:
> Hello,
>
> for technical reasons I have no Mail::SPF::Query. So my SA has no
> "view" to the spf settings of an incomming mail. But I run an
> SPF-Milter in front of SA without Mail::SPF::Query. That Filter adds
> an Received-SPF header t
Help. sa-update is jammed.
What should I do?
rules: failed to run __KAM_BODY_LENGTH_LT_256 test, skipping:
(Can't locate object method "check_body_length" via package
"Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus" at (eval 1114) line 419.
etc. etc.
> Help. sa-update is jammed.
> What should I do?
>
> rules: failed to run __KAM_BODY_LENGTH_LT_256 test, skipping:
> (Can't locate object method "check_body_length" via package
> "Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus" at (eval 1114) line 419.
>
> etc. etc.
Just got a report from another source
> -Original Message-
> From: Axb [mailto:axb.li...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 1:11 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Anyone from ReturnPath want to deal with this
>
> On 09/05/2012 11:28 PM, Tom Bartel wrote:
>
> > A tad shorter?
> >
> > RCVD_IN_
On 09/06/2012 06:16 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> With no examples in corpora and good s/o's, i think mass check is likely
> to score the rule high which brings us back to the same point. I did
> consider that though.
> Regards,
> KAM
I admit my initial instinct was what Jari suggested, but I defe
On 06/09/12 12:08, Andreas Schulze wrote:
Hello,
for technical reasons I have no Mail::SPF::Query. So my SA has no "view" to the
spf settings of an incomming mail.
But I run an SPF-Milter in front of SA without Mail::SPF::Query. That Filter
adds an Received-SPF header to the mails but do not r
On 09/05/2012 01:07 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
>> My recent logwatch reports show it hitting more ham than spam,
>
> If you could send me offline the rule hits for the hams it's hitting at
> your site that would help. That should be an easy grep of you
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 09/05/2012 01:07 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
My recent logwatch reports show it hitting more ham than spam,
If you could send me offline the rule hits for the hams it's hitting at
your site that would help
Am 06.09.2012 17:08 schrieb Ned Slider:
> If your milter adds the Received-SPF header before the mail is
> passed to SA then maybe you could simply write a rule to check the
> Received-SPF header and score as you see appropriate.
Yes, the Milter add a Received-SPF header.
Could you point me to som
Hi,
We noticed a big increase in user CPU utilization on our MX servers since Sep
2nd sa-update. On a typical day we process over 2 million emails on our mail
cluster. Our debugging has so far isolated the problem to:
1) iXhash was a problem module , so we disabled it (the remote location it
On 06/09/12 17:45, Andreas Schulze wrote:
Am 06.09.2012 17:08 schrieb Ned Slider:
If your milter adds the Received-SPF header before the mail is
passed to SA then maybe you could simply write a rule to check the
Received-SPF header and score as you see appropriate.
Yes, the Milter add a Receiv
On 09/06, Piotr Kapiszewski wrote:
>$sa_local_tests_only = 1 (amavis hook)
SpamAssassin is wrong about three times as often without network tests.
But if you're crippling the network tests as much as you mentioned, might
as well use the score set which is optimized for having the network tests
Piotr,
> We noticed a big increase in user CPU utilization on our MX servers since
> Sep 2nd sa-update. On a typical day we process over 2 million emails on
> our mail cluster. Our debugging has so far isolated the problem to:
> 1) iXhash was a problem module, so we disabled it (the remote locat
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 06:19:52PM +, Piotr Kapiszewski wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We noticed a big increase in user CPU utilization on our MX servers since Sep
> 2nd sa-update. On a typical day we process over 2 million emails on our mail
> cluster. Our debugging has so far isolated the problem t
Le 06/09/2012 18:34, John Hardin a écrit :
...yeah, the _PARTIAL versions are intended to catch a form that's
spread out over several paragraphs or HTML sections. Unfortunately
there's no way to tell a rule to match multiple times but not for a
string it has already matched.
Yes, I've seen simi
18 matches
Mail list logo
