Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
However, using (?:\s|\ )* also does the trick. Yes, keeping the
nasty asterisk quantifier. The difference is merely dropping the \n from
the alternation, which is part of \s whitespace anyway.
Wondering if this is a case where Perl fails to optimize out the \n.
Which w
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 13:14 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Yes, that sounds like the culprit indeed is one or more custom rule. If
> > that "much faster" equals twice as fast,
>
> Probably closer to 4-6x; dual PIII/866 -> Core i3 3GHz.
Sure -- that "twice" assumption
John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Kris Deugau wrote:
Whitelisting these once they're found lets them bypass SA altogether,
but in the meantime they get stuck in the mail queue.
Has anyone got any suggestions for decreasing the load SA imposes
trying to process one of these?
Any possibi
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 10:38 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
Mmmm. I don't *think* so, but testing the message on a stock SA 3.3.1
took "only" a minute (on slow hardware) vs 13 (on my much faster desktop).
The latter being the production system with the custom rules, or at
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 10:38 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > However, we've just had a couple of *legitimate* messages get stuck for
> > > essentially the same reason - a whole lot of pathologically bad HTML.
> >
> > Rings a bell. Such reports usually turned out to be ca
On 05/27, John Hardin wrote:
> Yes. "*" is "zero or more, unbounded" and "+" is "one or more, unbounded".
>
> It's much better to have an upper limit in body and rawbody rules,
> e.g. {0,80} or {1,80}
>
> The upper limit may need some experimentation to set in specific
> cases, but even so, {0,25
On Fri, 27 May 2011, Kris Deugau wrote:
I have a couple of instances of [a-z]+ and similar; is that effectively as
troublesome as .+ or .*?
Yes. "*" is "zero or more, unbounded" and "+" is "one or more, unbounded".
It's much better to have an upper limit in body and rawbody rules, e.g.
{0,8
On Fri, 27 May 2011 10:38:17 -0400
Kris Deugau wrote:
> I have a couple of instances of [a-z]+ and similar; is that
> effectively as troublesome as .+ or .*?
It could be, depending on what else is in the regex. There's a fairly
nice Wikipedia article about evil regexes:
http://en.wikipedia.or
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 15:02 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
Every so often we get a message or two stuck in our inbound mail queue
because it took too long for SA to process during mail delivery.
However, we've just had a couple of *legitimate* messages get stuck for
esse
yes. URIBL_RHS_DOB is somewhat useful. It's not _very_ reliable alone
though, so I use it with META rules that add points for combinations
with other things that are common with uri type spam.
It seems to hit much of the same things as fresh.spameatingmonkey.net
ymmv.
Ken
On 5/27/2011 3:17
Hi all,
yesterday I learned about "day old bread", a list of domains registered in the
last five day.
I found informations from 2007:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200704.mbox/<4615e4b7.5010...@inetmsg.com>
Has anybody current experiences ??
Thanks
--
Viele Grüß
11 matches
Mail list logo
