On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 03:28 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 02:36 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> I've looked down the list a couple of times and didn't see anything I
> thought would affect it due to a possibly bad assumption that this sort
> of error would be insulated
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 03:28 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> I'll post the complete list either later today or on Tuesday (this is
> the start of the second May Bank Holiday weekend).
>
Here you go. This is the yum upgrade summary:
Packages Installed:
kernel-PAE-3.14.4-200.fc20.i686
Gr
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 02:36 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 01:10 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 01:12 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> > > > > The yum upgrade replaced three Perl libraries:
> > >
> > > Is that everything that was upgraded,
On Fri, 23 May 2014, Alex wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:44 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2014, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 15:49 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
rawbody RAW_BLANK_LINES_05 /(\r?\n){5,9}/i
Why is everyone trying to match empty lines these days?
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 01:10 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 01:12 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > > The yum upgrade replaced three Perl libraries:
> >
> > Is that everything that was upgraded, or just the Perl bits?
>
> Just the Perl bits.
Figured as much. That ra
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 16:33 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2014 00:51:38 +0200 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> Ian> I mostly get the rest of your answer, but this is incorrect. Same
> Ian> user, I'm 100% sure. Unless you count spamd checking on my behalf
> Ian> as different user - d
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 19:36 -0400, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:44 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 May 2014, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 15:49 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am clearly missing something with these rules but I la
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 01:12 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 00:34 +0200, Axb wrote:
> > On 05/24/2014 12:23 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> > > 2 Failure of spamc/spamd to output any X-Spam headers
> > > =
> > > This morn
Hi,
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:44 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2014, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 15:49 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
>>
>>> I am clearly missing something with these rules but I lack the
>>> experience to
>>> see what it is:
>>>
>>> score RAW_BL
On Sat, 24 May 2014 00:51:38 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Ian> I mostly get the rest of your answer, but this is incorrect. Same
Ian> user, I'm 100% sure. Unless you count spamd checking on my behalf
Ian> as different user - do you?
Karsten> Yes.
Karsten> user_prefs are per user. They are
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 18:37 -0400, Daniel Staal wrote:
> Two quick questions: Does it happen to *every* message passed to spamc, and
> does restarting spamd solve it?
>
It seems to. At least its consistently done that to a semi-random
selection of my example spam collection over several tests. Ea
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 00:34 +0200, Axb wrote:
> On 05/24/2014 12:23 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > 2 Failure of spamc/spamd to output any X-Spam headers
> > =
> > This morning SA 3.3.2 was working as expected on my SA test box when I
> > amended
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 00:34 +0200, Axb wrote:
> On 05/24/2014 12:23 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > This afternoon I ran into two oddities. I haven't noticed the first in
> > the past and have never seen the second before.
> >
> > 1) Missing DCC_CHECK rule
> > =
> install and
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 15:09 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2014 20:35:26 +0200 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Karsten> That means you have been running lint check as a user, who is
> Karsten> not the user receiving mail. Linting also checks user_prefs,
> Karsten> but for obvious reason
--As of May 23, 2014 11:23:44 PM +0100, Martin Gregorie is alleged to have
said:
This morning SA 3.3.2 was working as expected on my SA test box when I
amended a rule to recognise a new spam variant. The test box is running
a fully patched (as of last Friday) copy of Fedora 20. Then I did my
no
On 05/24/2014 12:23 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
This afternoon I ran into two oddities. I haven't noticed the first in
the past and have never seen the second before.
1) Missing DCC_CHECK rule
=
I was doing some cleanup on my private rule collection, which meant
running SA
This afternoon I ran into two oddities. I haven't noticed the first in
the past and have never seen the second before.
1) Missing DCC_CHECK rule
=
I was doing some cleanup on my private rule collection, which meant
running SA 3.3.2 with the command:
$ spamassassin -D &1
On Fri, 23 May 2014 20:35:26 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Ian> spamassassin --lint
Ian> after every edit to my user_prefs file, and made sure there was no
Ian> output. This morning, in the course of the ongoing battle against
Ian> enom related spam, I looked in /var/log/mail.log, and imagin
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 13:47 -0600, Kai Meyer wrote:
> On 05/22/2014 10:36 PM, Kai Meyer wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 May 2014 05:33:31 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > Training as root rather than the system user receiving the mail (and
> > > calling SA) is only possible with site-wide Bayes setup
On 5/23/2014 3:47 PM, Kai Meyer wrote:
So it seems that when I find a problem where command-line is scoring it
higher, it's always because of the addition of the URIBL_DB_SPAM score.
This seems like a "normal" issue then, and I can deal with that.
That is fairly normal. You should double-check
On 05/22/2014 10:36 PM, Kai Meyer wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 05:33:31 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 20:14 -0600, Kai Meyer wrote:
I have a CentOS 6 postfix + dovecot + mysql (for vmail) + spamassassin
(user prefs via mysql) server that I've been running for a few years
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 11:30 +0200, Alex Andreotti wrote:
> is there a way to configure spamd (without patching it) to log only
> errors?
AFAIK there is no such option.
Though isn't that exactly what log levels are for? If you aren't
interested in the info noise, filter it out. See the journalctl
--As of May 22, 2014 3:04:04 PM +0200, Tom Hendrikx is alleged to have said:
Hi,
After checking the results of sa-update and doing some manual dns
queries, it seems that last rule updates were done more than a month
ago. This used to be an almost daily process, even when there were only
score c
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 11:59 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2014 05:33:31 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Training as root rather than the system user receiving the mail (and
> > calling SA) is only possible with site-wide Bayes setup.
>
> How does one implement "site-wide Ba
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 10:09 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> I have diligently used
>
> spamassassin --lint
>
> after every edit to my user_prefs file, and made sure there was no
> output. This morning, in the course of the ongoing battle against enom
> related spam, I looked in /var/log/mail.log,
I have diligently used
spamassassin --lint
after every edit to my user_prefs file, and made sure there was no
output. This morning, in the course of the ongoing battle against enom
related spam, I looked in /var/log/mail.log, and imagine my surprise
when I found this logged with every delivery:
On 05/23/2014 06:22 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
While the number of messages getting through has dropped off to near zero this
morning I nonetheless took the time to look into registrars with respect to
SPAM and found this interesting web site: http://rss.uribl.com/nic/
As of this morning the top
that’s nice, but useless unless you also take into account the size of the
registrar, IOW the number of domains they registered in the same period.
Neil Schwartzman
Executive Director
Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email
http://cauce.org
Tel : (303) 800-6345
Twitter : @cauce
On May
While the number of messages getting through has dropped off to near zero this
morning I nonetheless took the time to look into registrars with respect to
SPAM and found this interesting web site: http://rss.uribl.com/nic/
As of this morning the top domain registrars with respect to spam origin a
On Fri, 23 May 2014 05:33:31 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Training as root rather than the system user receiving the mail (and
> calling SA) is only possible with site-wide Bayes setup.
How does one implement "site-wide Bayes setup" (on a CentOS
system)?
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayl
Hello,
is there a way to configure spamd (without patching it) to log only
errors?
journalctl show that idle messages are emitted about every minute
(circa).
Thanks in advance
Cheers
spamd[756]: prefork: child states: II
spamd[756]: spamd: handled cleanup of child pid [23965] due to SIGCHLD: ex
31 matches
Mail list logo
