Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I was about to open a bugreport on this until I did a search for
spamd reports:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=spamd
That's a rather broad comment plain-text search and includes totally
unrelated stuff.
Instead, try limiting
If I've been following this thread correctly, linux4michelle has
already
stated he/she receives messages from their ISP. Therefore, rejecting
at
the SMTP level will ultimately cause the ISP to be a source of
backscatter (i.e. not receiving messages directly), which he/she can
not
reject.
Per Jessen wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I was about to open a bugreport on this until I did a search for
spamd reports:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=spamd
That's a rather broad comment plain-text search and includes totally
unrelated stuff.
My spamassassin version is 3.2.5. I go to
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.002005/updates_spamassassin_org
and edit 50_scores.cf and edit FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK and set
it to 0.
Is this the correct way to edit default rules or I have
to put it on local.cf?
You should do the score in local.cf
You
On 28.10.08 11:01, Nelson Serafica wrote:
I have setup qmail-scanner to quarantine and notify admin for any spam
receive. I just notice that it tagged an email which was legitimate (false
positive).
As I check spamd.log, I saw
AWL,FAKE_REPLY_C,FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK
Karsten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=E4ckelmann?= writes:
I was about to open a bugreport on this until I did a search for spamd
reports:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=spamd
That's a rather broad comment plain-text search and includes totally
unrelated stuff.
Benny Pedersen wrote:
[About CNAME MX records...]
rfc means 'request for comment'. and rfc's change as technology changes.
but not much in smtp have changed since first version deployed
The RFC in question (RFC2181) is about DNS, not SMTP.
Actually, in STD0010 and STD0013 (the standards
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
In my understanding, these are different concepts. In particular, RMX
doesn't hijack the TXT record, which is one of the major sins of SPF.
Yes, but they both were designed to do the same work. SPF however can do
more. TXT was used because nothing else could, at
75% of my mail one on one to clients is getting blocked...I keep
having to back-door mail through an online mail service which means I
can't access items I need easily...please, please, how do I remove
it? I didn't ask for it, I don't want it and my clients are furious
at what looks
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 17:54 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
75% of my mail one on one to clients is getting blocked...I keep
having to back-door mail through an online mail service which means I
can't access items I need easily...please, please, how do I remove
it? I didn't ask for
On Monday, October 27, 2008, 4:54:56 PM, Rev. Corbie Mitleid wrote:
ccn 75% of my mail one on one to clients is getting blocked...I keep
ccn having to back-door mail through an online mail service which means I
ccn can't access items I need easily...please, please, how do I remove
ccn it? I
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 23:59 +0200, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
In my understanding, these are different concepts. In particular, RMX
doesn't hijack the TXT record, which is one of the major sins of SPF.
Yes, but they both were designed to do the same work. SPF
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:54:56 -0400:
and their tech people say it definitely is not.
And they are probably right! It's well-known that malicious supernatural
beings do try to sabotage followers of the Light. I suggest you untertake
a specialized house blessing for all
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Duane Hill wrote on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:09:02 + (UTC):
Therefore, linux4michelle has no real control over SMTP level
filtering.,
whatever, can we please have this off-topic discussion stopped? Thanks.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl,
btw one of last updates had to fix this problem. When did you sa-update
last
time?
It's been a week. I'll be putting this on my crontab today probably every
12am
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Nelson Serafica [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
btw one of last updates had to fix this problem. When did you sa-update
last
time?
It's been a week. I'll be putting this on my crontab today probably every
12am
I already put this on my crontab after
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 21:05 +0800, Nelson Serafica wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Nelson Serafica
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btw one of last updates had to fix this problem.
When did you sa-update last
time?
Corbie Wrote:
75% of my mail one on one to clients is getting blocked...I
keep having to back-door mail through an online mail service
which means I can't access items I need easily...please,
please, how do I remove it? I didn't ask for it, I don't
want it and my clients are
Hi all...
I continue with slow delivery in my mail server. Like I told you,
the filters are working well, but the mail queue some times is big and
slow.
I have read http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/FasterPerformance
and I did some chages to try to get performance. This changes
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Luis Croker wrote:
I continue with slow delivery in my mail server. Like I told you, the
filters are working well, but the mail queue some times is big and slow.
I have read http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/FasterPerformance
Have you checked to see whether your
I have 4 CPUS and 4 Gigs of RAM. The server have just the mail
applications and is doing nothing else the CPUs are 100%
available.
About the spamd childs... The amavis-new calls the utilities of
spamassassin but i think it doesnt need the spamd deamon running...
just use it to get
Luis Croker wrote:
Hi all...
I continue with slow delivery in my mail server. Like I told you,
the filters are working well, but the mail queue some times is big
and slow.
I have read http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/FasterPerformance
and I did some chages to try to get
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 09:34 -0600, Luis Croker wrote:
Hi all...
.
smtp-amavis unix - - n - 100 smtp
-o smtp_data_done_timeout=1200
-o smtp_send_xforward_command=yes
-o disable_dns_lookups=yes
and I have the same number of procs for amavisd:
$max_servers
Hi... I have done tests with 10 processes, 30, 50, 100 and the
results are the same... I have 4 Gb RAM and spamd is not running...
Regards.
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 11:01 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Luis Croker wrote:
Hi all...
I continue with slow delivery in my mail
Luis Croker wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 11:01 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Luis Croker wrote:
Hi all...
I continue with slow delivery in my mail server. Like I told
you, the filters are working well, but the mail queue some times is
big and slow.
I have
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 23:59 +0200, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
In my understanding, these are different concepts. In particular, RMX
doesn't hijack the TXT record, which is one of the major sins of SPF.
Yes, but they both were designed to do the same work.
btw one of last updates had to fix this problem. When did you
sa-update last time?
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Nelson Serafica [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
It's been a week. I'll be putting this on my crontab today probably every
12am
On 28.10.08 21:05, Nelson Serafica wrote:
I
On 28.10.08 10:04, Luis Croker wrote:
Hi... I have done tests with 10 processes, 30, 50, 100 and the
results are the same... I have 4 Gb RAM and spamd is not running...
lower it back to 10 or so, unless you receive that much of mail.
Luis Croker wrote:
Hi all...
I
Let's not make a confusing situation any worse by piling on ridicule, please.
Clearly this isn't a SpamAssassin issue, as the user is not running a mail
server. Perhaps we could help them identify the source of their issue and then
turn them over to the appropriate support people?
Rev.
Hi guys..
I have read all your mails and I have decreased the number of procs to
10. the performance is better but continues slow.
The server is not using swap and I have no spamd running, this is
called from amavisd.
How many procs is the recommended for this server with 4 Gb
I stand corrected. I guess I should have said that *I* don't use SpamAssassin
for outgoing email. :)
James Butler
Internet Society - Los Angeles Chapter
Chairman of the Board
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 10/28/08 at 12:32 PM Larry Nedry wrote:
On 10/28/08 at
I have put the log level to 4 in amavisd.conf and this is one
operation... Everything is Ok in times... until SA is called and the
delay goes to 6 seconds... actually at the end of the log amavisd
displays a timing statistics and SA check spent 97% of the time...
Regards.
Oct 28
Thank you, Rev. Mitleid.
It does appear that your MAIL service provider, capital.net, is indeed using
SpamAssassin, and that your message indicated below has been identified as spam
and blocked by capital.net. You should send that same data to your
representative at your ACCESS provider (ISP),
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Aren't you using redhat? There was some bugreprt about perl in redhat
causing slow processing..
I believe that issue was fixed with the update of perl last month.
Luis Croker wrote:
Hi... I have done tests with 10 processes, 30, 50, 100 and the
results are the same... I have 4 Gb RAM and spamd is not running...
Regards.
You also need to make sure the maxproc column of the feed to amavisd in
/etc/postfix/master.cf matches whatever you've
On 10/28/08, Ned Slider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luis Croker wrote:
Hi... I have done tests with 10 processes, 30, 50, 100 and the
results are the same... I have 4 Gb RAM and spamd is not running...
Regards.
You also need to make sure the maxproc column of the feed to amavisd in
Gary V wrote:
6 seconds seems somewhat typical. Mostly due to network tests. Some
RBLs are no longer and you could turn the non functional RBL rules off
by setting to 0. I'm not sure which ones though. Maybe someone else
knows.
From my own stats of hits against DNSBLs and URIBLs for the last
37 matches
Mail list logo
