Hello:
Fol all messages, spamassassin takes 14++ seconds. Version: 3.3.1
(2010-03-16)
Debuging it, the times are:
Oct 24 14:03:20 email spamd[22477]: timing: total 14237 ms -
read_scoreonly_config: 4 (0.0%),
signal_user_changed: 6 (0.0%),
parse: 6 (0.0%),
extract_message_metadata: 80 (0.6%),
Hello
I'm trying to get some performance data on a customised ruleset using
the instructions at
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ProfilingRulesWithDprof
and have two problems.
Firstly, I'm not actually getting any *_body_test or *_head_test data in
tmon.out. Instead, after running dprofpp,
On 23/10/2010 5:47 PM, RW wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:28:38 -0230
Lawrence @ Rogerslawrencewilli...@nl.rogers.com wrote:
Hello all,
I noticed recently that our users are getting spam with the subject
similar to the following:
Hi,
Is there a quick way to compare 2 headers? I am seeing spam lately that
has an invalid e-mail address (one not hosted by us) set in the To:
header, but has the intended one in the Envelope-To: header
What I would like to do is take the Envelope-To and run a regex to check
if the To:
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 16:05 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
I have settled on the following as it's more specific and less prone to
FPs (I can't think of any possibilities right now)
header __LOCAL_SUBJECT_SPAMMY Subject =~ /^[0-9a-zA-Z,.+]{42,}$/
meta LOCAL_SUBJECT_SPAMMY1
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 16:26 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
Is there a quick way to compare 2 headers? I am seeing spam lately that
has an invalid e-mail address (one not hosted by us) set in the To:
header, but has the intended one in the Envelope-To: header
What I would like to do is
On 24/10/2010 5:44 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 16:26 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
Is there a quick way to compare 2 headers? I am seeing spam lately that
has an invalid e-mail address (one not hosted by us) set in the To:
header, but has the intended one in the
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 22:08 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 16:05 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
I have settled on the following as it's more specific and less prone to
FPs (I can't think of any possibilities right now)
header __LOCAL_SUBJECT_SPAMMY Subject =~
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 18:03 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 24/10/2010 5:44 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
There are perfectly valid reasons to not have the actual recipient in
the To header. Ever sent a message with Bcc recipients? Ever received a
post via a mailing list?
I had not
On 24/10/2010 9:27 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 18:03 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 24/10/2010 5:44 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
There are perfectly valid reasons to not have the actual recipient in
the To header. Ever sent a message with Bcc recipients? Ever
Is there? should there be a rule for a header like:
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
11 matches
Mail list logo
