OK spent a coouple of days on this as I need the 'old' machine as a web server and the new 2.8ghz machine is way overkill for that.
So I've got everything moved over, including most of the extra rules in /etc/mail/spamassassin and the URI stuff going as well (was already using his for 2.64 anyway). Spent alot of time testing with known spam/ham and ended adding most of my 2.64 config onto the 3.02.
Some rules have moved about, but I think I got most of it covered by now.
So far so good, about 5 hours of running and it seems to be holding it's own. will see over the next few days...
-- Martin Hepworth Snr Systems Administrator Solid State Logic Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
ChupaCabra wrote:
I was sticking with 2.64 and postfix 1.* for those same reasons
My /boot got totally hosed on my server so I was forced to begin using my experimental box with PF2 and SA302. Now at least half of the spam that used to be processed by SA never even gets there as PF rejects it outright. I am using no extra rulesets and my users are complimenting me on less spam. I have not even trained bayes with spam and ham mails yet.
I knw throwing PF 2.* into the mix throws a wrench in the works but I am happy now.
Go figgure.
And 2.6 was doing great too.
LOL just as i was finishing up this when yet another satisfied user comes in to ask what I did and why he was getting 7 marked spams instead of 400 a day.
Nichols, William wrote:
I will be sticking with 2.64 for a while as well.
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 3:42 AM
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: maintaining the 2.6 branch
Another reason....
I've been doing some testing ove the last couple of days with 3.02 and found it's scores are way lower on all test emails than 2.64. (anywhere upto 33% lower in limited tests).
I've managed to get most of my 2.64 rules etc over (along with bayes), but I'm nervous about switching given the amount of spam 2.64 IS catching vs 3.02 MIGHT miss.
Alot of the defaults rules have reduced scores (esp when running bayes+net combination) and I don't want to give my users the spam.
I've seen several other people that complain/note this issue as well so it seems I'm not alone on this.
I shall be sticking to 2.64 for the forsee-able future as 3.02 gives me no advantage and quite a high likelihood of more spam dropping through the system!
-- Martin Hepworth Snr Systems Administrator Solid State Logic Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Per Jessen wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Show of hands,
who's still on 2.64 with no exact plans to upgrade?
Alright, so far I've seen 4-5, maybe 6 people saying they intend to
stick to
2.64 for the foreseeable future. Is that really all? I'm quite willing myself to put an effort in in maintaining 2.64, and
I'll
probably be doing it on a personal level anyway, but to work to
produce actual
releases for others, I think a bit more of an interest is needed.
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean.
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean.
**********************************************************************
