In my first post, SA addition to message is included. I am including all header lines this time; I noticed SA has added first lines in one result, and has added lines somewhere in the middle in other result. :P I've restarted spamd after test # 1.
TEST1.TXT: It takes less than 2 seconds ---------------------------------------------------------- X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on WebServer X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,HTML_MESSAGE,LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT,MIME_HTML_ONLY, MISSING_DATE,MISSING_MID,RDNS_NONE,TO_NO_BRKTS_NORDNS_HTML autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from [41.251.163.175] ([41.251.150.113]) by izsmmmo.com with MailEnable ESMTP; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:29:35 +0300 From: SexMeds from USA <ferdi.to...@izsmmmo.com> To: ferdi.to...@izsmmmo.com Subject: ferdi.tosun, special 70% bonus for you. was climatological causes its has Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: <ferdi.to...@izsmmmo.com> TEST2.TXT: This one takes more than 4 seconds. ---------------------------------------------------------- Received: from localhost by WebServer with SpamAssassin (version 3.3.1); Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:26:36 +0300 From: SexMeds from USA <ferdi.to...@izsmmmo.com> To: ferdi.to...@izsmmmo.com Subject: ferdi.tosun, special 70% bonus for you. was climatological causes its has X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on WebServer X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Level: ********************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=22.7 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,HTML_MESSAGE,LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT,MIME_HTML_ONLY, MISSING_DATE,MISSING_MID,RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT,RCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_XBL, RDNS_NONE,TO_NO_BRKTS_NORDNS_HTML,T_SURBL_MULTI1,T_SURBL_MULTI2, T_SURBL_MULTI3,T_SURBL_MULTI4,URIBL_AB_SURBL,URIBL_DBL_SPAM,URIBL_JP_SURBL, URIBL_OB_SURBL,URIBL_SBL,URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_4C406C1C.11A60000" I also have a monitoring logs; here are the last 1 hour: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16.07.2010, 16:35:00 OK X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, 16.07.2010, 16:40:00 OK X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, 16.07.2010, 16:45:00 OK X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, 16.07.2010, 16:50:00 OK X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, 16.07.2010, 16:55:00 OK X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, 16.07.2010, 17:00:00 OK X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, 16.07.2010, 17:05:00 OK X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, 16.07.2010, 17:10:00 OK X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, 16.07.2010, 17:15:00 OK X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, 16.07.2010, 17:20:00 OK X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, 16.07.2010, 17:25:00 OK X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, 16.07.2010, 17:30:00 OK X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=22.7 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, 16.07.2010, 17:35:00 OK X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Charles Gregory <cgreg...@hwcn.org> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Emin Akbulut wrote: > >> X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, >> X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, >> X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.5 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, >> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=24.4 required=6.3 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32, >> > (liberally snipped) > > There are commas at the end of these lines, implying you have trimmed the > rest of the list of tests that account for the different scores. Go back and > assemble the FULL logs, so that we can see the difference in what tests fire > and what tests don't. > > Now if I have to GUESS on insufficient data, I would suspect that the > 'port' of spamd to Windows(?) does not properly tidy up its children when > finished. The fact that it crashes certainly points in this direction. > May I presume that you did a 'full' memory test? > > To verify this situation, try running the same test as before, but leave a > one minute gap between each run/test (and with no other spamd calls during > that time interval!) so that we can see what happens when the spamd children > have time to properly terminate. > > - C > > Ps. I'm not researching this deeply, so I may trip over some minor aspect > of spamd coding/behaviour that the developers will call me on, I'm sure. :) >
