At 05:05 PM 1/12/2004, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
I guess that was a noble try... but it didn't work.
Well, it probably worked, just not enough. :)
Yeah, I'll buy that! :)
I'm going to try to separate the spamd/spamc processes and see how
that goes.
That will alleviate the utilization
At 05:52 PM 1/12/2004, Matt wrote:
Russ,
I'm not sure what actions will result in bypassing Declude Virus, but HOLD
and DELETE surely do. Since over 80% of E-mail is spam on the typical
system, that should save you a great deal over processing everything with
Virus, though JunkMail is where
Russ,
Another idea would be to block SBL with IMail 8 so that stuff never gets
to Declude. SBL can be as much as 25% of my traffic, and I weight that
in Declude so that it deletes on just that one hit. This could
potentially save you a good deal of processing power and be huge for
your
- Original Message -
From: Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another idea would be to block SBL with IMail 8 so that stuff never gets
to Declude. SBL can be as much as 25% of my traffic, and I weight that
in Declude so that it deletes on just that one hit. This could
potentially save you a
I think that I've pointed out the caveats many times over on blocking
with SBL. SBL is though more accurate than my system as a whole, and I
have never seen a true false positive with it.
I've asked this several times; has anyone ever seen a false positive
with SBL? I've not ever received a
- Original Message -
From: Matt
I think that I've pointed out the caveats many times
over on blocking with SBL. SBL is though more
accurate than my system as a whole, and I have
never seen a true false positive with it.
I've asked this several times; has anyone ever seen
a false
Bill,
It appears that your entire list is from one source, Topica.
Search the archives for a discussion of Topica, how their lack of
message list verification results in lots of spam, and how they are
also a spam house, even sending spam from the same block of IP's. I
thought this was an FP
that it is okay to delete legitimate messages based on where they are
delivered from.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Matt
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 9:45
AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
SpamD/SpamC for Declude
Bill,It appears that your entire
I'm trying to get this set up on a couple of test machines. It appears as
if I have spamd up and running successfully. I can telnet to the ip
address of the spamd server on port 783, and I see the message logged by
spamd on the console. However, when I go to run spamc from a machine, it
At 10:02 AM 1/12/2004, Russ Uhte \(Lists\) wrote:
I'm trying to get this set up on a couple of test machines. It appears as
if I have spamd up and running successfully. I can telnet to the ip
address of the spamd server on port 783, and I see the message logged by
spamd on the console.
\(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamD/SpamC for Declude
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:02 AM 1/12/2004, Russ Uhte \(Lists\) wrote:
I'm trying to get this set up on a couple of test machines. It
appears as if I have spamd up and running
At 11:10 AM 1/12/2004, Nick Hayer wrote:
Hi Russ,
I have it set for 8. I hold on 10 delete on 30. It runs on my
mailserver.
Awesome!! When you installed all the CPAN stuff, did you also install the
HTML::parser? It told me when I went to make the spamassassin package,
that it was missing. I
Okay... forget this question... RTFM...
Wow, and here I thought I was still working on the manual. :)
Now the important question... for those of you using this, what
percentage of your hold weight are you giving this test?
Thus far, 80/120 and rising.
--Sandy
Awesome!! When you installed all the CPAN stuff, did you also install
the HTML::parser? It told me when I went to make the spamassassin
package, that it was missing.
Yes - That was missing with me as well.
I just installed it, and all seems
okay...
kool. So its workn? What do you think of
At 12:39 PM 1/12/2004, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
Okay... forget this question... RTFM...
Wow, and here I thought I was still working on the manual. :)
Yeah... not really the manual, but the spamd -? works too!! :)
I just installed it on my server which is a pretty busy server. I think
someone
This server normally processes about 200,000 emails a day, running
sniffer, most of the MailPure filters, and antivirus. Normally the
processor utilization during peak times is right around 40-50% on a
1 minute average.
That's pretty high to start out. Try lowering the priority of
At 01:23 PM 1/12/2004, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
This server normally processes about 200,000 emails a day, running
sniffer, most of the MailPure filters, and antivirus. Normally the
processor utilization during peak times is right around 40-50% on a
1 minute average.
That's pretty high
I guess that was a noble try... but it didn't work.
Well, it probably worked, just not enough. :)
I'm going to try to separate the spamd/spamc processes and see how
that goes.
That will alleviate the utilization issue, for sure. Depending on the
age of your server, you should think
Russ,
I'm not sure what actions will result in bypassing Declude Virus, but
HOLD and DELETE surely do. Since over 80% of E-mail is spam on the
typical system, that should save you a great deal over processing
everything with Virus, though JunkMail is where most of the processing
goes when
19 matches
Mail list logo
