3 decimal places, not 3 significant digits.
ie: 10.001 has 5 significant digits, but 3 decimal places.
AFAIK there are no SA rules with scores more exact than 3 decimal places.
So, no.. you would not have any rounding issues at that point.
Yes you would, or at least could. .001 is not an
onsdag 05 april 2006 06:43 skrev Philip Prindeville:
I was looking on the FAQ and the Wiki, but couldn't find this...
How do I filter based on the recipient mailbox address? For instance, I'm
running Linux, so if I get email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
then I know
Tony Finch wrote:
The following headers come from a legitimate message - I have obscured the
sender's name, but that's all. The SlipStream SP Server seems to have
appended the client username and IP address to the message-ID, causing the
FP. See also:
Andy Jezierski wrote:
There have been numerous threads on how to have end users drop
misclassified mail to spam/ham folders in Exchange, but I don't recall
seeing any mention of a way of doing this with Notes.
Although we don't let users train Bayes, Lotus client and server from
version 5
Loren Wilton wrote:
3 decimal places, not 3 significant digits.
ie: 10.001 has 5 significant digits, but 3 decimal places.
AFAIK there are no SA rules with scores more exact than 3 decimal places.
So, no.. you would not have any rounding issues at that point.
Yes you would, or at
Matt Kettler wrote:
Loren Wilton wrote:
3 decimal places, not 3 significant digits.
ie: 10.001 has 5 significant digits, but 3 decimal places.
AFAIK there are no SA rules with scores more exact than 3 decimal places.
So, no.. you would not have any rounding issues at that point.
Erm.. Loren.. While that may be true of binary fractions, nobody uses
binary fractions.
In IEEE floating point format (single precision or otherwise), 0.001 has
an exact binary representation.
Very few things in this world use binary fractions. Standard floating
point numbers on computers
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 00:25 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
[...]
AFAIK there are no SA rules with scores more exact than 3 decimal places.
So, no.. you would not have any rounding issues at that point.
Long answer: Only as long that you only add and subtract. But
additions/subtractions are
Loren Wilton wrote:
Erm.. Loren.. While that may be true of binary fractions, nobody uses
binary fractions.
In IEEE floating point format (single precision or otherwise), 0.001 has
an exact binary representation.
Very few things in this world use binary fractions. Standard floating
point
Don't do this from spamassassin, reject messages sent to nonexistent
users from your MTA (postfix, exim4, whatever you use). This will also
lower the backscatter mail volume from your system (sending bounces to
forged sender addresses).
Gabor Sipos
I was looking on the FAQ and the Wiki,
Loren Wilton wrote:
Erm.. Loren.. While that may be true of binary fractions, nobody uses
binary fractions.
In IEEE floating point format (single precision or otherwise), 0.001 has
an exact binary representation.
Very few things in this world use binary fractions. Standard floating
point
Hello Andy,
we've been already in contact the last
year. But after I've sent you a test version of my DomSpamC/DSCLearner,
I haven't heart anything from you.
Pherhaps you'll take a fresh look at
my newest DSCLearner. It allows user-based and site-wide bayesian training.
It runs as Lotus Domino
I was looking on the FAQ and the Wiki, but couldn't find this...
How do I filter based on the recipient mailbox address? For instance, I'm
running Linux, so if I get email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL
PROTECTED] then I know they're bogus...
you accept them in your mta ?
And can
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I was looking on the FAQ and the Wiki, but couldn't find this...
How do I filter based on the recipient mailbox address? For instance, I'm
running Linux, so if I get email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
then I know they're bogus...
And can
Matt Kettler wrote:
[It] has no access to the message envelope, only the headers and
body, so this information isn't accessible to SA.
Well, unless you add an Apparently-To header in the MTA prior to calling
SpamAssassin. MIMEDefang has an $AddApparentlyToForSpamAssassin variable you
can set
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
[It] has no access to the message envelope, only the headers and
body, so this information isn't accessible to SA.
Well, unless you add an Apparently-To header in the MTA prior to calling
SpamAssassin. MIMEDefang has an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matt Kettler wrote:
[It] has no access to the message envelope, only the headers and body,
so this information isn't accessible to SA.
Well, unless you add an Apparently-To header in the MTA prior to calling
SpamAssassin. MIMEDefang has an
Matt Kettler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Well, unless you add an Apparently-To header in the MTA prior to
calling SpamAssassin.
Yes, but I've never seen an Apparently-To implementation that listed
all the recipients of a multi-recipient message...
You have now. :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Well, unless you add an Apparently-To header in the MTA prior to
calling SpamAssassin.
Yes, but I've never seen an Apparently-To implementation that
listed all the recipients of a
onsdag 05 april 2006 15:02 skrev Bowie Bailey:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have now. :) From mimedefang.pl:
if ($AddApparentlyToForSpamAssassin and
($#Recipients = 0)) {
push(@sahdrs, Apparently-To: .
join(, , @Recipients) . \n);
}
Andy Jezierski [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 04.04.2006 23:13:08:
There have been numerous threads on how to have end users drop
misclassified mail to spam/ham folders in Exchange, but I don't recall
seeing any mention of a way of doing this with Notes.
Is anyone doing this with Notes
List,
if you have a significant number of French-language users, I'd love to
have some feedback on a ruleset to catch the endless virus hoax
messages. Things like the worst ever according to CNN, only
discovered yesterday, no rememdy, according to McAfee, burns the
sector zero of your hard
David Landgren wrote:
List,
if you have a significant number of French-language users, I'd love to
have some feedback on a ruleset to catch the endless virus hoax
messages. Things like the worst ever according to CNN, only
discovered yesterday, no rememdy, according to McAfee, burns the
On Mittwoch, 5. April 2006 15:48 Rick Macdougall wrote:
Strange, I'm the Network admin for an ISP in Montreal, Quebec and
I've never ever seen anything like that (about 30k email accounts,
90% French).
So you're either
1) happy
and
2) not subscribed to the wonderful spam lists
Post some of
...
Loren Wilton wrote:
3 decimal places, not 3 significant digits.
ie: 10.001 has 5 significant digits, but 3 decimal places.
AFAIK there are no SA rules with scores more exact than 3 decimal places.
So, no.. you would not have any rounding issues at that point.
Yes you would, or
Rick Macdougall wrote:
David Landgren wrote:
List,
if you have a significant number of French-language users, I'd love to
have some feedback on a ruleset to catch the endless virus hoax
messages. Things like the worst ever according to CNN, only
discovered yesterday, no rememdy, according
Hello
One thing I've noticed about almost ALL spam that gets through at this
point is that they have a LOT of misspelled (and obfuscated) words.
Could SpamAssassin benefit from a filter that would actually check the
spelling of the text parts of the message, and if misspelled words
exceeds, for
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
Could SpamAssassin benefit from a filter that would actually check the
spelling of the text parts of the message, and if misspelled words
exceeds, for example, 50%, then we can add a few points to the SPAM
score? I'm not sure how to begin coding this, but I think it
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
Hello
One thing I've noticed about almost ALL spam that gets through at this
point is that they have a LOT of misspelled (and obfuscated) words.
Could SpamAssassin benefit from a filter that would actually check the
spelling of the text parts of the message, and if
Paolo Cravero as2594 writes:
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
Could SpamAssassin benefit from a filter that would actually check the
spelling of the text parts of the message, and if misspelled words
exceeds, for example, 50%, then we can add a few points to the SPAM
score? I'm not sure how to
1) FPs on highly technical mail due to words not known to the spell
checker.
I hadn't thought of that, but people who are dealing with highly
technical e-mails would probably also be able to customize their
local.cf file to effectively turn off the rule.
2) FPs on email sent by folks of the
And how would you deal with messages in other languages? Over here 99%
of messages in English are spam! AFAIK there's no language indicator
in
email messages.
I wouldn't deal with messages in other languages. My clients are all
english speaking Americans, and we already block all foreign
Bowie Bailey wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have now. :) From mimedefang.pl:
if ($AddApparentlyToForSpamAssassin and
($#Recipients = 0)) {
push(@sahdrs, Apparently-To: .
join(, , @Recipients) . \n);
}
Hmmm... Is this header removed prior to
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
3) FPs on email sent by lazy/stupid folks that can't spell.
(Translation: management material)
I don't mind these getting blocked. In fact, I'd love it if every time
someone sent me a very poorly written e-mail they got a bounce message
back telling them to turn on the
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Philip Prindeville wrote:
How do I filter based on the recipient mailbox address? For instance, I'm
running Linux, so if I get email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
then I know they're bogus...
And can probably block it, even if some of the recipients
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have now. :) From mimedefang.pl:
if ($AddApparentlyToForSpamAssassin and
($#Recipients = 0)) {
push(@sahdrs, Apparently-To: .
join(, , @Recipients) . \n);
}
Gustafson, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 05.04.2006 17:11:10:
1) FPs on highly technical mail due to words not known to the spell
checker.
I hadn't thought of that, but people who are dealing with highly
technical e-mails would probably also be able to customize their
local.cf file to
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Philip Prindeville wrote:
How do I filter based on the recipient mailbox address? For instance, I'm
running Linux, so if I get email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
then I know they're bogus...
And can probably block it, even if some
Rule No.1: If a rule is likely to hit more
ham then spam due to certain circumstances,
it is not a rule to consider implementing unless
you know you'll never meet the circumstances -
but then it's up to YOU to modify your local.cf
and implement the rule ;)
You say to-may-to, I say
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
1) FPs on highly technical mail due to words not known to the spell
checker.
I hadn't thought of that, but people who are dealing with highly
technical e-mails would probably also be able to customize their
local.cf file to effectively turn off the rule.
Well,
Also, the rule probably wouldn't detect misuses of then in place of
than. ;-)
(Nothing personal, lots of people, make that mistake, as well as
insure/ensure, effect/affect and many similar ones.)
Seriously though, I get the feeling that a well-trained bayes database, which
to a big extent is
Steve Lindemann wrote:
A good choice... and another way to accomplish the task (assuming
sendmail, I'm not sure about other MTAs):
/etc/mail/access
bogus_user ERROR 550 Go away - you are not welcome here
or
bogus_userREJECT (acknowledge reject message)
or
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
onsdag 05 april 2006 06:43 skrev Philip Prindeville:
I was looking on the FAQ and the Wiki, but couldn't find this...
How do I filter based on the recipient mailbox address? For instance, I'm
running Linux, so if I get email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL
Matt Kettler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
[It] has no access to the message envelope, only the headers and
body, so this information isn't accessible to SA.
Well, unless you add an Apparently-To header in the MTA prior to calling
SpamAssassin.
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
[It] has no access to the message envelope, only the headers and
body, so this information isn't accessible to SA.
Well, unless you add an Apparently-To
UNSUBSCRIBE
-Original Message-
From: Philip Prindeville [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:52 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Filtering based on the recipients
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, April 5, 2006 10:53 am, Jim Zimmerman wrote:
UNSUBSCRIBE
As I'm sure this isn't the first list you'll want to unsubscribe from, nor
will it be the last, there's a general rule for lists:
You don't send UNSUBSCRIBE commands to the 'list'. There's generally a
specific address to send them
Hi all,
I'm using SA 3.0.4, and I wanted to keep my score modifications in a separate
file from the rest of my configuration. I removed my score changes from
local.cf and put them in a separate file called custom_scores.txt, then put
include custom_scores.txt in local.cf. Now SA will no
Aaron Grewell wrote:
Hi all,
I'm using SA 3.0.4, and I wanted to keep my score modifications in a separate
file from the rest of my configuration. I removed my score changes from
local.cf and put them in a separate file called custom_scores.txt, then put
include custom_scores.txt in
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
Also, the rule probably wouldn't detect misuses of then in place of
than.
grin type=evil/
May bee yore you sirs half goad spelling, oar naught. Orphan, there
justice likely two right pore lee. Eye no this is write cause
Thunderbird excepts it. They're are know read
Aaron Grewell wrote:
Hi all,
I'm using SA 3.0.4, and I wanted to keep my score modifications in a separate
file from the rest of my configuration. I removed my score changes from
local.cf and put them in a separate file called custom_scores.txt, then put
include custom_scores.txt in
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 10:59:13AM -0700, Aaron Grewell wrote:
I removed my score changes from
local.cf and put them in a separate file called custom_scores.txt, then put
include custom_scores.txt in local.cf. Now SA will no longer lint my config
properly, and fails on each score line that
Using include completely redundant at the local.cf level, as SA
automatically parses /etc/mail/spamassassin/*.cf. Rather than use
custom_scores.txt, just use custom_scores.cf and put it alongside local.cf.
That's what I tried first, and got the same errors. So I thought that maybe I
was
Aaron Grewell wrote:
Using include completely redundant at the local.cf level, as SA
automatically parses /etc/mail/spamassassin/*.cf. Rather than use
custom_scores.txt, just use custom_scores.cf and put it alongside local.cf.
That's what I tried first, and got the same errors. So I thought
Matt Kettler wrote:
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
Hello
One thing I've noticed about almost ALL spam that gets through at this
point is that they have a LOT of misspelled (and obfuscated) words.
Could SpamAssassin benefit from a filter that would actually check the
spelling of the text parts of the
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
3) FPs on email sent by lazy/stupid folks that can't spell.
(Translation: management material)
I don't mind these getting blocked. In fact, I'd love it if every time
someone sent me a very poorly written e-mail they got a bounce
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 11:38, Matt Kettler wrote:
Sounds like you've got something other than spaces/tabs on that line (ie:
unprintable escape codes), or the file was created on a windows machine
with windows end-of-line format but is being read by a *nix machine.
Ah, that's it.
Matt Kettler wrote:
Of course you could train your spell checker to your companies local
mail words.. however, at that point you've implemented a low-quality
version of a bayes checker.
and he can just use a bayesian classifier to implement his feature.
training is easy:
- ham = all words
Aaron Grewell wrote:
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 11:38, Matt Kettler wrote:
Sounds like you've got something other than spaces/tabs on that line (ie:
unprintable escape codes), or the file was created on a windows machine
with windows end-of-line format but is being read by a *nix machine.
Ah, that's it. According to file(1) the thing ended up in UTF-8. That's a
side effect of my spreadsheet addiction, I was using OpenOffice Calc (on
Linux) to edit the file. I found a program that will do the conversion to
ASCII, so this should be pretty easy to fix once I get that built.
Philip Prindeville wrote:
litre, and if I'm feeling really silly, aluminium (I hate that word).
Aluminium rocks! Especially aluminium foil and aluminium airplanes.
The following message got through and I couldn't figure out why:
ftp://ftp.redfish-solutions.com/pub/paypal4.eml
so I ran:
spamassassing -x -LD
on it and saved the output into:
ftp://ftp.redfish-solutions.com/pub/paypal4.log
what's odd is that it reads the first line (the Return-Path:) line
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:30:20PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
The following message got through and I couldn't figure out why:
ftp://ftp.redfish-solutions.com/pub/paypal4.eml
The first problem is that the headers are a bit malformed:
MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html\r\n
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:30:20PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
The following message got through and I couldn't figure out why:
ftp://ftp.redfish-solutions.com/pub/paypal4.eml
The first problem is that the headers are a bit malformed:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Philip Prindeville wrote:
The following message got through and I couldn't figure out why:
ftp://ftp.redfish-solutions.com/pub/paypal4.eml
so I ran:
spamassassing -x -LD
on it and saved the output into:
ftp://ftp.redfish-solutions.com/pub/paypal4.log
what's odd is that it reads
Philip Prindeville wrote:
What gives you that idea? The debug output clearly shows the received
headers
being parsed, the mime parser finds the message part (malformed content-type
and all), URIs are parsed out of the message, etc.
Well, for a start, normally the X-Spam-* stuff
Matt Kettler wrote:
Erm.. When do you see SA inserting X-Spam-* at the END of the header
block???
SA doesn't (anymore.) MIMEDefang does, when using action_add_header, which
calls libmilter's smfi_addheader function. Recent versions of MIMEDefang have
action_insert_header, which can be used
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:46:08PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
What gives you that idea? The debug output clearly shows the received
headers
being parsed, the mime parser finds the message part (malformed content-type
and all), URIs are parsed out of the message, etc.
Well, for a
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
What gives you that idea? The debug output clearly shows the received headers
being parsed, the mime parser finds the message part (malformed content-type
and all), URIs are parsed out of the message, etc.
Well, for a start, normally the
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
Well, for a start, normally the X-Spam-* stuff gets inserted at the very
end of the header block, but what I'm seeing instead is:
You're running 3.1 which puts them at the top of the headers. It was in the
3.1.0 release announcement:
- modify header ordering for
Philip Prindeville wrote:
things would be a little clearer if there was a consistent place that the
X-Spam-*: stuff got inserted at... It seems to move around.
IIRC this is the first time it's moved in the lifetime of the product,
but perhaps I've forgotten another occasion...
--
Kelson
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
Well, for a start, normally the X-Spam-* stuff gets inserted at the very
end of the header block, but what I'm seeing instead is:
You're running 3.1 which puts them at the top of the headers. It was in the
3.1.0 release announcement:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Doesn't RFC-822 require that the addresses be bracketed? Or is that
only when a comment string is present?
Only when there's a comment.
--
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications www.speed.net
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
The malformed content-type header caused this. The MIME part isn't
text/html, it's text/htmlcontent-transfer-encoding8bitrn. So the best
that can happen is URLs are parsed out of the text.
Ok, we'll here's a new rule:
# incompetent spamware programmers...
header
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
The malformed content-type header caused this. The MIME part isn't
text/html, it's text/htmlcontent-transfer-encoding8bitrn. So the best
that can happen is URLs are parsed out of the text.
Ok, we'll here's a new rule:
#
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
The malformed content-type header caused this. The MIME part isn't
text/html, it's text/htmlcontent-transfer-encoding8bitrn. So the best
that can happen is URLs are parsed out of the text.
Ok, we'll here's a new rule:
# incompetent
Greetings.
Has anyone considered the utility of having SpamAssassin score based partly
on the presence and validity of an OpenPGP signature, and on the trust of
the OpenPGP key?
Here are some ideas:
1) So far I've never received any spam which has been digitally signed; on
the other hand, I do
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
The malformed content-type header caused this. The MIME part isn't
text/html, it's text/htmlcontent-transfer-encoding8bitrn. So the best
that can happen is URLs are parsed out of the text.
Ok, we'll
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Perhaps you want something more like:
header L_INCOMPETENTALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?$/
The $ forces end-of-line match, and the \s? allows any single whitespace to
be
inserted before the actual EOL.
I know that the \n? is optional,
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Perhaps you want something more like:
header L_INCOMPETENTALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?$/
Scratch my last email. $ doesn't work with ALL.
I just tested 3 variants:
header L_INCOMPETENT1ALL =~ /\\r\\n/
header L_INCOMPETENT2
hi,
is there a way to check if my own email address somehow got onto a blacklist?
an email I sent to myself comes up with
0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/)
0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50%
[cf: 100]
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 02:58:19PM -0700, Alex wrote:
is there a way to check if my own email address somehow got onto a blacklist?
I don't know of any email address blacklists, other than people's personal
ones.
an email I sent to myself comes up with
0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Perhaps you want something more like:
header L_INCOMPETENTALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?$/
Scratch my last email. $ doesn't work with ALL.
I just tested 3 variants:
header L_INCOMPETENT1ALL =~
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Perhaps you want something more like:
header L_INCOMPETENTALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?$/
Scratch my last email. $ doesn't work with ALL.
I just tested 3 variants:
header
Philip Prindeville wrote:
header L_INCOMPETENT1ALL =~ /\\r\\n/
header L_INCOMPETENT2ALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?$/
header L_INCOMPETENT3ALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?\n/
Ok, I tried #3 and it worked, as you said... But leaving the \s?
didn't.
I'm confused. What exactly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
header L_INCOMPETENT1ALL =~ /\\r\\n/
header L_INCOMPETENT2ALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?$/
header L_INCOMPETENT3ALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?\n/
Ok, I tried #3 and it worked, as you said... But leaving the \s?
didn't.
I'm
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Perhaps you want something more like:
header L_INCOMPETENTALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?$/
Scratch my last email. $
Dear Sirs/Madams,
I have been attempting to properly integrate SpamAssassin into
Postfix and have not found the solution that I am looking for.
Currently I have Spamassassin running as a daemon (spamd, version
3.1.0a-2) which uses MySQL to store Bayes, AWL, user preferences and
stats.
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Perhaps you want something more like:
header L_INCOMPETENTALL =~ /\\r\\n\s?$/
James Keating wrote:
Dear Sirs/Madams,
I have been attempting to properly integrate SpamAssassin into
Postfix and have not found the solution that I am looking for.
Currently I have Spamassassin running as a daemon (spamd, version
3.1.0a-2) which uses MySQL to store Bayes, AWL, user
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this a high volume mail server?
Yes it is rather high volume server, I don't have any estimates on # of
messages.
Something like this should do the trick (this is off the cuff, and just
a reference, you will have to modify for your exact setup).
master.cf
James,
Timeout is 600 seconds. If spamd doesn't have respond in that amount of
time them there is something else is wrong. I suppose that if all of
the spamd threads are clogged then you might find a waiting list but 600
seconds is a lifetime.
We had a misconfigured DNS once that slowed all
Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Montag, 3. April 2006 14:34 Lars Ringh wrote:
Now, since in each case the source data can come from two different
servers scanning the same kind of mails, should I try to merge the
bayes-data from servers home1 and home2 into the the same myqsl-db
and then merge the
93 matches
Mail list logo
