Hi Patrick,
Am Donnerstag, den 15.09.2016, 22:02 -0400 schrieb Patrick Domack:
> Sounds like a lot of work for an old spamassassin version.
>
> https://launchpad.net/%7Epatrickdk/+archive/ubuntu/production/+sourcepub/5219815/+listing-archive-extra
H ... do you think better backporting 3.4.1
Am 16.09.2016 um 12:48 schrieb Marcus Schopen:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 15.09.2016, 22:02 -0400 schrieb Patrick Domack:
>> Sounds like a lot of work for an old spamassassin version.
>>
>> https://launchpad.net/%7Epatrickdk/+archive/ubuntu/production/+sourcepub/5219815/+listing-archive-
Hi Robert,
Am Freitag, den 16.09.2016, 13:02 +0200 schrieb Robert Schetterer:
> Am 16.09.2016 um 12:48 schrieb Marcus Schopen:
> > Hi Patrick,
> >
> > Am Donnerstag, den 15.09.2016, 22:02 -0400 schrieb Patrick Domack:
> >> Sounds like a lot of work for an old spamassassin version.
> >>
> >> https
I had no reason to backport it, xenial didn't exist when 3.4.1 was
released, and there is no need to backport a package just for a new
source code change, just apply the current package to the new source
code.
Quoting Marcus Schopen :
Hi Patrick,
Am Donnerstag, den 15.09.2016, 22:02 -04
Am 16.09.2016 um 13:41 schrieb Marcus Schopen:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Am Freitag, den 16.09.2016, 13:02 +0200 schrieb Robert Schetterer:
>> Am 16.09.2016 um 12:48 schrieb Marcus Schopen:
>>> Hi Patrick,
>>>
>>> Am Donnerstag, den 15.09.2016, 22:02 -0400 schrieb Patrick Domack:
Sounds like a lot of
Dear List,
i have an issue with spamassassin under debian wheezy (7.11) and spamassassin
version 3.3.2.
my surrounding is as follows: perimeter smtp relay1 is postfix 2.9.6-2 on
debian wheezy 7.11 (dedicated host) that transfers mails to relay2 which is
postfix 2.9.6-2 on debian wheezy 7.11 (d
Am 16.09.2016 um 14:49 schrieb Maik Linnemann:
So far so good. The concept works like it should with only one
exception: Some mails are not tagged by spamassassin and i dont have a
clue why. Viscerally i would say its about 20% of all mails that arent
tagged by spamassassin
how is SA integrat
SA is integrated into postix via master.cf like:
==
# service type private unpriv chroot wakeup maxproc command + args
# (yes) (yes) (yes) (never) (100)
# ===
What do you see in your syslog reports from spamc?
Is it reporting any errors?
Please note the 'max-size' parameter for spamc:
-s max_size, --max-size=max_size
Set the maximum message size which will be sent to spamd -- any bigger
than
this threshold and the message will be return
Am 16.09.2016 um 18:17 schrieb David B Funk:
What do you see in your syslog reports from spamc?
Is it reporting any errors?
Please note the 'max-size' parameter for spamc:
-s max_size, --max-size=max_size
Set the maximum message size which will be sent to spamd -- any
bigger than
On 9/16/2016 12:59 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
...
in case you have postscreen or something else which does proper
rbl-scoring in front of the content-scanners it's no problem because
only a small part of spam attempts are mahing it to SA
may depend on the amount of ham which can be also mit
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2016, Chip M. wrote:
Sadly, I have more FP data for you. :(
Here's one specific example (just a single very long line from
one corpse):
background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf8,%3Csvg
width='104px' height='82px' viewB
Am 16.09.2016 um 19:27 schrieb Joe Quinn:
On 9/16/2016 12:59 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
...
in case you have postscreen or something else which does proper
rbl-scoring in front of the content-scanners it's no problem because
only a small part of spam attempts are mahing it to SA
may depend
13 matches
Mail list logo
