On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Piotr Kapiszewski wrote:
We noticed a big increase in user CPU utilization on our MX servers
since Sep 2nd sa-update. On a typical day we process over 2 million
emails on our mail cluster.
The issue was an old version of __SARE_URI_VISIT_US in 70_sare_uri1.cf
If you have
On 09/07/2012 02:36 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 9/6/2012 11:32 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 09/06/2012 06:16 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>> With no examples in corpora and good s/o's, i think mass check is likely
>>> to score the rule high which brings us back to the same point. I did
>>
On 9/6/2012 11:32 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 09/06/2012 06:16 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
With no examples in corpora and good s/o's, i think mass check is likely
to score the rule high which brings us back to the same point. I did
consider that though.
Regards,
KAM
I admit my initial insti
Am Do, 6.09.2012, 13:08 schrieb Andreas Schulze:
> Is it possible to use the result of the milter in the same way SA would do
> with its own SPF implementation?
> Than the SPF information could have an influance to the spamcore.
I run smf-spf milter (sf.net/projects/smfs) and applied a number of
