Hi,
1.3.2 (build 55) keeps crashing on Lin and Win machines. Log doesn't
tell that much but it keeps crashing at delay greeting as far as i can see:
May-22-07 07:30:29 Delaying greeting for 68.201.127.191 - duration 10
seconds
May-22-07 07:30:39 Connected: 68.201.127.191:3475 - xx.xxx.x.162:25
Another lightweight test you might want to consider is scoring a message
for how much the Date: header deviates from Delivery-date:
I get a lot of spam that is dated a few days/weeks in the future, and
also a few years in the past. This almost never happens with legitimate
email. Occasionally,
On 22 May 2007 at 8:26, Pascal Dreissen wrote:
Hi,
1.3.2 (build 55) keeps crashing on Lin and Win machines. Log doesn't
tell that much but it keeps crashing at delay greeting as far as i can see:
(55) working fine on Win here. I'm using 5sec delay.
paul
I'm seeing some pattern in using the Web interface and greeting
delay it seems.
I'm using cacti to gather statistics and saw that on the time that
assp is unresponsive (for 20 minutes or so) at that point the script
was running which is gathering the statistics (scraper script on
I'm seeing some pattern in using the Web interface and greeting delay
it seems.
I'm using cacti to gather statistics and saw that on the time that
assp is unresponsive (for 20 minutes or so) at that point the script
was running which is gathering the statistics (scraper script on the
web
Hi all!
To get web messaging working you have to define spamdomain at dns. Then
add local domain to ASSP named spamdomain. Do not make this domain to
imail as imail thinks that its external domain and will deliver message as
external (you should see entries on assp log when sending mail to
It had the bypass for nodelay (and more bypasses) from the
beginning.
fritz
That's great, but I have the impression (can't tell for sure) that I'm not
receiving all mail. Assp interface often get totally unresponsive and it
looks like a lot of mail isn't simply passing thru it. I tell you,
It appears that the nodelay file has many duplicates and some ip addresses
3rd octet's don't have a decimal after them. Does this file need to be
purged for single entries only and does the 3rd octet need the decimal
points?
Thank you,
Rick
FWIW, I'm running 1.3.1() and have seen it crash repeatedly with the
same behavior as stated in the first post. This has been happening
since early am on Monday.
I have seen this in the past where a particular host connecting will do
that, but this time the last few connections in the log are
FWIW, I'm running 1.3.1() and have seen it crash repeatedly with the
same behavior as stated in the first post. This has been happening
since early am on Monday.
We were talking here the latest built, 1.3.1 does not have greeting
wait.
fritz
FWIW, I'm running 1.3.1() and have seen it crash repeatedly with the
same behavior as stated in the first post. This has been happening
since early am on Monday.
We were talking here the latest built, 1.3.1 does not have greeting
wait.
Fritz,
I have been testing with build 44, is
I have been testing with build 44, is stable no problem (also with
statistics collecting, so every 5 minutes the webinterface is
triggered)!
Forget about the delay greeting, if statistics collection via
webinterface every 5 minutes is your priority. It will not work.
fritz
Does ASSP check for packets received during the delay period (before the 220
command is sent)? If so, does it do anything to block the offender when it
tries again?
Marrco wrote:
I'm anxious to try this in ASSP. I've used Response Delays with
other software and found it very effective. But
Does ASSP check for packets received during the delay period (before
the 220
command is sent)? If so, does it do anything to block the offender
when it
tries again?
I answered that already twice.
fritz
-
This SF.net
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
Does ASSP check for packets received during the delay period (before
the 220
command is sent)? If so, does it do anything to block the offender
when it
tries again?
I answered that already twice.
I saw this response from you in an earlier message:
That's not what I was asking. I was asking if the offending address
went
into the blacklist, graylist, or other blocking mechanism.
No.
fritz
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
That's not what I was asking. I was asking if the offending address
went
into the blacklist, graylist, or other blocking mechanism.
No.
fritz
Would it not be better if addresses that disregard the greeting delay time
could add to the PB score, be blacklisted for
Would it not be better
No.
fritz
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
That's not what I was asking. I was asking if the offending address
went
into the blacklist, graylist, or other blocking mechanism.
No.
Is the problem with seeing packets received during the delay period (before
the 220 command is sent) the fact that single-threaded ASSP *can't* see if
19 matches
Mail list logo
