On Oct 29, 2010, at 8:42 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
I'd like to see spamassassin only run network tests when they might
affect the outcome.
Why?
Assuming a reasonably fast connection network checks are basically free.
They are kicked off at the start of a scan and the results are
On 10/30, m...@khonji.org wrote:
I misread your email then, my bad.
As far as I understand it now, is that you are getting the hostname by
reverse DNS lookup against the connecting SMTP peer (that is sending a mail).
Then you use that FQDN to for a DNS A RR query. And you expect this IP
On 10/30, Michael Parker wrote:
I'd like to see spamassassin only run network tests when they might
affect the outcome.
Why?
To reduce the network load on my server which is one of the hosts of the
DNSWL.org list?
Assuming a reasonably fast connection network checks are basically free.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:02:56PM -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
I see there's a RDNS_NONE rule for when the sending IP address has no DNS
PTR (reverse DNS) record. But no rule for when that PTR record doesn't
have a matching A (forward DNS) record that matches the sending IP?
Is this
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 02:23:00AM -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 10/30, Michael Parker wrote:
I'd like to see spamassassin only run network tests when they might
affect the outcome.
Why?
To reduce the network load on my server which is one of the hosts of the
DNSWL.org
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 22:02:56 -0400
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
I see there's a RDNS_NONE rule for when the sending IP address has no
DNS PTR (reverse DNS) record. But no rule for when that PTR record
doesn't have a matching A (forward DNS) record that matches the
sending IP?
There's one
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 02:23:00 -0400
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
But the total amount of bandwidth and processing time saved on the
internet from not running unnecessary tests on every instance of
spamassassin seems worth doing.
You are also wasting resources by putting the round-trips on
On 2010-10-30 9:56, RW wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 02:23:00 -0400
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
But the total amount of bandwidth and processing time saved on the
internet from not running unnecessary tests on every instance of
spamassassin seems worth doing.
You are also wasting resources
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 10:28:09 +0200
Yet Another Ninja sa-l...@alexb.ch wrote:
On 2010-10-30 9:56, RW wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 02:23:00 -0400
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
But the total amount of bandwidth and processing time saved on the
internet from not running unnecessary tests
On 30/10/10 07:42, Henrik K wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:02:56PM -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
I see there's a RDNS_NONE rule for when the sending IP address has no DNS
PTR (reverse DNS) record. But no rule for when that PTR record doesn't
have a matching A (forward DNS) record
RW wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 22:02:56 -0400
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
I see there's a RDNS_NONE rule for when the sending IP address has no
DNS PTR (reverse DNS) record. But no rule for when that PTR record
doesn't have a matching A (forward DNS) record that matches the
sending
On 30/10/2010 4:28 AM, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
rsync? to check mail?
Hrm, not a bad idea for the basis of a bayesian filter.
Daryl
In the last two network mass checks, today and a week ago, only 3.1% and
3.4%, respectively, of the corpora has been spam. Why?
Total number of spams in the network mass check corpora over the last five
weeks:
20101002 585728
20101009 150082
20101016 154352
20101023 6858
20101030 6244
btw, I think this is already possible using the shortcircuit plugin.
Just use rule priorities to run the non-net rules first, and
shortcircuit if they are sufficient.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 08:05, Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 02:23:00AM -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com
Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
Are you running it against an e-mail with a known match? Using
spamassassin -D -t sample-spam.txt and having sample-spam.txt contain
the complete e-mail including headers?
Yes, it's a known match. I can take a full copy of a received message
(with headers, although
On 30/10/2010 1:12 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
In the last two network mass checks, today and a week ago, only 3.1% and
3.4%, respectively, of the corpora has been spam. Why?
I had an IBM Deathstar go on me. Although I thought it had, moving my
mail spool and personal home directory
On 10/30, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I had an IBM Deathstar go on me. Although I thought it had, moving
my mail spool and personal home directory to a RAID array never made
it to the top of my to-do list. To make it worse, my
backups-to-disk array failed the week before. I've never been able
17 matches
Mail list logo
