Hi,
is it possible to skip scanning with spamc for large mails? (eg. 1MB)
I receive lots of huge mail (15-30MByte) on my server an the scanning
takes very long for those mails, that will be ham anyways.
Best Regards,
Felix Buenemann
Felix Buenemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is it possible to skip scanning with spamc for large mails? (eg. 1MB)
I receive lots of huge mail (15-30MByte) on my server an the scanning
takes very long for those mails, that will be ham anyways.
Best Regards,
Felix Buenemann
quote src=man
Felix Buenemann wrote:
Hi,
is it possible to skip scanning with spamc for large mails? (eg. 1MB)
I receive lots of huge mail (15-30MByte) on my server an the scanning
takes very long for those mails, that will be ham anyways.
1MB is probably too large. There is not much spam with such
Andrzej Adam Filip schrieb:
Felix Buenemann[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is it possible to skip scanning with spamc for large mails? (eg. 1MB)
I receive lots of huge mail (15-30MByte) on my server an the scanning
takes very long for those mails, that will be ham anyways.
Best Regards,
Felix
On Saturday 13 September 2008, Felix Buenemann wrote:
Andrzej Adam Filip schrieb:
Felix Buenemann[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is it possible to skip scanning with spamc for large mails? (eg. 1MB)
I receive lots of huge mail (15-30MByte) on my server an the scanning
takes very long for those
Gene Heskett wrote:
There are rumors floating around that the python being shipped by
redhat/fedora is about 100x slower than python installed from the tarballs.
python? do you mean perl?
Can this be confirmed?
See the recent thread using RHEL / CentOS / Fedora perl?
I have reduced
On Saturday 13 September 2008, mouss wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
There are rumors floating around that the python being shipped by
redhat/fedora is about 100x slower than python installed from the
tarballs.
python? do you mean perl?
Possibly, at my age, CRS can be a problem. :)
I not that
On Sat, 2008-09-13 at 07:57 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
I have reduced the size of what gets sent thru SA in my .procmailrc, first to
50k a few months ago, and just now to 20k, as I am running Fedora 8 here and
often have lags that can last 2-3 minutes. Am I on the right track to speed
this
Hi,
writing a plugin to investigate zip-file content I see the need
to get access to attachment data.
The stucture I get from the method argv using the code below
lacks contents using the MIME type application/octet-stream - at least.
(If I just change the content-type: header for testing
On Sat, 2008-09-13 at 01:54 +, Duane Hill wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gentlemen, I am frustrated by the duplication of information in:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin
3.2.5-mon_sep__8_23_53_29_2008.jidanni2.jidanni.org (2008-06-10) on
On Sat, 2008-09-13 at 03:13 +0200, Felix Buenemann wrote:
Hi,
I'm experiencing the exact same problem with 3.2.3, y fix was simply
to manually specify the spam score:
# adjust for high efficiency rules
score URIBL_BLACK 50
score URIBL_JP_SURBL 50
score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 50
score
From: mouss
1MB is probably too large. There is not much spam with such size
(although few ones were reported here).
What has the studies of the average and realistic maximum of spam email
sizes concluded?
Was the conclusion the SA default size?
- rh
RobertH wrote:
From: mouss
1MB is probably too large. There is not much spam with such size
(although few ones were reported here).
What has the studies of the average and realistic maximum of spam email
sizes concluded?
Was the conclusion the SA default size?
I am not aware of any
Depends on you call SA.. Mailscanner for one has this feature.
martin
-Original Message-
From: mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:42 PM
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Skip scanning for large mails
RobertH wrote:
From: mouss
1MB is probably
Martin.Hepworth wrote:
Depends on you call SA.. Mailscanner for one has this feature.
sorry, I don't understand what feature you are talking about.
my point was that the number of large spam messages is too low for me to
spend SA processing on it.
The samples I looked at could easily be
Sorry, the feature of not SA scanning if the message is 'large'.
--
martin
-Original Message-
From: mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 8:25 PM
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Skip scanning for large mails
Martin.Hepworth wrote:
Depends on you
Sorry about the generic subject, but it is the only thing this newbie knows to
describe the symptom.
Platform: Debian (Etch?)
Latest Spamassassin in apt (version 3.1.7-deb)
Invocation comes from KMail, via spamc (presumably) to the spamd daemon- set
up using KMail Wizard, and manually checked
Check to make sure that network tests aren't disabled. Many distro
packages have network tests turned off my default. Not sure where
Debian would configure this, sorry.
Daryl
On Saturday 13 September 2008 20:00, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Check to make sure that network tests aren't disabled. Many distro
packages have network tests turned off my default. Not sure where
Debian would configure this, sorry.
Daryl
Thanks for the reply!
Where would I check that and
On 13/09/2008 8:20 PM, aladdin wrote:
On Saturday 13 September 2008 20:00, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Check to make sure that network tests aren't disabled. Many distro
packages have network tests turned off my default. Not sure where
Debian would configure this, sorry.
Daryl
Thanks for
On Saturday 13 September 2008 20:20, aladdin wrote:
On Saturday 13 September 2008 20:00, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Check to make sure that network tests aren't disabled. Many distro
packages have network tests turned off my default. Not sure where
Debian would configure this, sorry.
On Saturday 13 September 2008 20:30, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 13/09/2008 8:20 PM, aladdin wrote:
On Saturday 13 September 2008 20:00, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Check to make sure that network tests aren't disabled. Many distro
packages have network tests turned off my default. Not
On Saturday 13 September 2008 20:38, aladdin wrote:
On Saturday 13 September 2008 20:30, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 13/09/2008 8:20 PM, aladdin wrote:
On Saturday 13 September 2008 20:00, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Check to make sure that network tests aren't disabled. Many distro
On Saturday 13 September 2008 21:58, aladdin wrote:
On Saturday 13 September 2008 20:38, aladdin wrote:
On Saturday 13 September 2008 20:30, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 13/09/2008 8:20 PM, aladdin wrote:
On Saturday 13 September 2008 20:00, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Check to make
24 matches
Mail list logo
