Re: [spamdyke-users] softlimit error

[BC via spamdyke-users]

A, the ulimit limits.  I'd forgotten about those and was focusing 
on the "softlimit" word in the error.


Thanks, Sam.

On 5/5/2016 6:35 AM, Sam Clippinger via spamdyke-users wrote:
You're correct that those messages are related to limits, but not 
the ones softlimit can set.  Those messages are about "hard" limits, 
which are set using the "ulimit" command.  I'd guess either BSD has 
a default hard limit or something on your system is setting them 
before spamdyke runs.  Those limits are extremely high, so there's 
very little chance they're going to cause any problems, but spamdyke 
will keep complaining about them as long as log-level is "verbose" 
or higher.


___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Re: [spamdyke-users] IPv6 Question

[BC via spamdyke-users]

That is what I figured.  Thanks, Sam.

On 5/5/2016 6:30 AM, Sam Clippinger via spamdyke-users wrote:
Right now, spamdyke has no support for IPv6 at all, so it can't 
understand that nameserver line.  However, the only consequence 
should be that error message -- it shouldn't have any trouble 
skipping that line and using the IPv4 nameserver.


___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Re: [spamdyke-users] Second SD Stats report

[Philip Rhoades via spamdyke-users]

Sam,


On 2016-05-05 22:27, Sam Clippinger via spamdyke-users wrote:

Very impressive numbers, thanks for sharing those!



No worries - I plan to keep it up so I can see if gradually improving 
the spamdyking has an impact - my own previous setup had almost 100% 
blocking rate but with some false positives - it would be nice if I 
could get SD to that effectiveness but with no false positives!




Out of curiosity,
of the messages that were delivered, how did you judge if they were
spam?



Well the ones that make it through the system and are delivered and end 
up getting eyeballed and manually moved into the spam / phishing folder 
for counting / processing later.




It sounds like the problem is that spamdyke-qrv is accepting messages
to invalid addresses?



Yes, and then when a delivery is tried the message gets bounced to the 
sender - which is normally bogus, so I end up getting a message:


"Hi. This is the qmail-send program at pricom.com.au.
I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the bounce 
bounced!"




You can try running spamdyke-qrv manually with
the "-v" flag (possibly twice) to see why it's deciding to allow the
recipient.  Something like this:
 spamdyke-qrv -v pricom.com.au [1] jackspratt



OK, that was one problem - I have never created a 
/var/qmail/users/assign file and built a /var/qmail/users/cdb file 
before . . but now, after going through that exercise, that command runs 
with no error or output and a delivery to jackspratt is still attempted 
. .


Thanks,

Phil.



-- Sam Clippinger

On May 4, 2016, at 4:39 AM, Philip Rhoades via spamdyke-users
 wrote:


People,

Last year I reported some stats after I had been using SD for about
a month and now I have a second set - unfortunately I forgot to
increase the number of backlogs for logrotate and I lost a few
months of data to compare delivered spam to but the latest stats are
from 100 days of data:



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GqinPR2mA0Jz-uTZ2zVJgutpiDl62HNbn2gWGNpd7Tk/pubhtml


There were some changes to the conf file between sets of data but I
didn't keep notes about changes and dates etc however it seems that
the proportion of ALLOWED lines went down a little which suggests
more spam was stopped - but conversely, the proportion of delivered
spams compared to SD lines went up a little - which I don't quite
understand . .

Now I want to try and stop the delivered spams that have invalid
email addresses - I have compiled and installed spamdyke-qrv OK and
set "reject-recipient" to "invalid" but these spams are still
getting through and then being bounced and since the return address
is bogus I get a postmaster message that the bounce has failed eg
for the address:

jackspr...@pricom.com.au

- suggestions?

Thanks,

Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra  NSW  2794
Australia
E-mail:  p...@pricom.com.au
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users




Links:
--
[1] http://pricom.com.au
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users


--
Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra  NSW  2794
Australia
E-mail:  p...@pricom.com.au
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Re: [spamdyke-users] softlimit error

[Sam Clippinger via spamdyke-users]

You're correct that those messages are related to limits, but not the ones 
softlimit can set.  Those messages are about "hard" limits, which are set using 
the "ulimit" command.  I'd guess either BSD has a default hard limit or 
something on your system is setting them before spamdyke runs.  Those limits 
are extremely high, so there's very little chance they're going to cause any 
problems, but spamdyke will keep complaining about them as long as log-level is 
"verbose" or higher.

-- Sam Clippinger




On May 4, 2016, at 3:04 PM, BC via spamdyke-users  
wrote:

> 
> Now that I've set log-level=excessive, I can see these two errors that 
> spamdyke is spitting out a lot:
> 
> May  4 13:54:52 Xeon_Right spamdyke[18726]: 
> ERROR(undo_softlimit()@spamdyke.c:3226): data segment hard limit is less than 
> infinity, could lead to unexplainable crashes: 34359738368
> May  4 13:54:52 Xeon_Right spamdyke[18726]: 
> ERROR(undo_softlimit()@spamdyke.c:3244): stack size hard limit is less than 
> infinity, could lead to unexplainable crashes: 536870912
> 
> Seems to be a harmless error report.
> 
> Per Sam's suggestion quite some time ago, I quit using the 'softlimit' option 
> in the tcpserver startup "run" files.  Available memory >5GiB free all the 
> time.  Very fast CPU.  The email part of the server is very lightly used as 
> the box is primarily an NAS and for me to play and experiment with 
> intellectually.
> 
> Had no crashes that I know of - been up for 41+ days since my last 
> intentional reboot.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> ___
> spamdyke-users mailing list
> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Re: [spamdyke-users] IPv6 Question

[Sam Clippinger via spamdyke-users]

Right now, spamdyke has no support for IPv6 at all, so it can't understand that 
nameserver line.  However, the only consequence should be that error message -- 
it shouldn't have any trouble skipping that line and using the IPv4 nameserver.

-- Sam Clippinger




On May 4, 2016, at 2:54 PM, BC via spamdyke-users  
wrote:

> 
> Using FreeBSD here.
> 
> In addition to my normal IPv4 connection, I have an IPv6 tunnel set up via 
> Hurricane Electric.  Also use unbound as my local DNS cache resolver for 
> resolving both IPv4 & IPv6 addresses and it has been doing both for over a 
> year now.
> 
> spamdyke doesn't seem to like the IPv6 resolver.  /var/log/maillog showing 
> LOTS of lines like this (log-level=info):
> 
> May  4 13:08:56 Xeon_Right spamdyke[18382]: 
> ERROR(load_resolver_file()@search_fs.c:753): invalid/unparsable nameserver 
> found: fd00::1
> 
> My /etc/resolv.conf file contains these two lines:
> 
> nameserver 10.0.0.1
> nameserver fd00::1
> 
> I didn't think that spamdyke is IPv6 aware?  Shouldn't it ignore the second 
> nameserver line above?
> 
> In hopes of getting some more info about this, I've set log-level=excessive.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> ___
> spamdyke-users mailing list
> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Re: [spamdyke-users] Second SD Stats report

[Sam Clippinger via spamdyke-users]

Very impressive numbers, thanks for sharing those!  Out of curiosity, of the 
messages that were delivered, how did you judge if they were spam?

It sounds like the problem is that spamdyke-qrv is accepting messages to 
invalid addresses?  You can try running spamdyke-qrv manually with the "-v" 
flag (possibly twice) to see why it's deciding to allow the recipient.  
Something like this:
spamdyke-qrv -v pricom.com.au jackspratt

-- Sam Clippinger




On May 4, 2016, at 4:39 AM, Philip Rhoades via spamdyke-users 
 wrote:

> People,
> 
> Last year I reported some stats after I had been using SD for about a month 
> and now I have a second set - unfortunately I forgot to increase the number 
> of backlogs for logrotate and I lost a few months of data to compare 
> delivered spam to but the latest stats are from 100 days of data:
> 
>  
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GqinPR2mA0Jz-uTZ2zVJgutpiDl62HNbn2gWGNpd7Tk/pubhtml
> 
> There were some changes to the conf file between sets of data but I didn't 
> keep notes about changes and dates etc however it seems that the proportion 
> of ALLOWED lines went down a little which suggests more spam was stopped - 
> but conversely, the proportion of delivered spams compared to SD lines went 
> up a little - which I don't quite understand . .
> 
> Now I want to try and stop the delivered spams that have invalid email 
> addresses - I have compiled and installed spamdyke-qrv OK and set 
> "reject-recipient" to "invalid" but these spams are still getting through and 
> then being bounced and since the return address is bogus I get a postmaster 
> message that the bounce has failed eg for the address:
> 
>  jackspr...@pricom.com.au
> 
> - suggestions?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Phil.
> -- 
> Philip Rhoades
> 
> PO Box 896
> Cowra  NSW  2794
> Australia
> E-mail:  p...@pricom.com.au
> ___
> spamdyke-users mailing list
> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users