On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 04:25:55PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 2021, at 10:35 PM, Henrik K wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 07:49:00PM -0800, John Hardin wrote:
> >>
> >> What would be helpful here would be logging of when a rule *starts*
> >> evaluation.
On 2021-11-15 at 18:08:20 UTC-0500 (Mon, 15 Nov 2021 16:08:20 -0700)
Philip Prindeville
is rumored to have said:
On Nov 12, 2021, at 8:49 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2021, Philip Prindeville wrote:
I got the message, saved it to a flat file, and ran "spamassassin -t
-D rules <
On 2021-11-15 at 20:06:22 UTC-0500 (Mon, 15 Nov 2021 20:06:22 -0500)
Matt Corallo
is rumored to have said:
Full headers follow, but it seems the shopify detection in the above
isn't quite correct;
Return-path:
Envelope-to: vmstfp...@mattcorallo.com
Delivery-date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 21:10:55
- Message from Matt Corallo -
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 20:06:22 -0500
From: Matt Corallo
Subject: SHOPIFY_IMG_NOT_RCVD_SFY but from Shopify
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Full headers follow, but it seems the shopify detection in the above
isn't quite correct;
On 2021-11-15 at 05:53:43 UTC-0500 (Mon, 15 Nov 2021 11:53:43 +0100)
Philipp Ewald
is rumored to have said:
I cannot make that line of text into a coherent English sentence.
May I pray for pardon my Lord. My english is not nativ.
We work with what we have. My German would be far worse.
Full headers follow, but it seems the shopify detection in the above isn't
quite correct;
Return-path:
Envelope-to: vmstfp...@mattcorallo.com
Delivery-date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 21:10:55 +
Received: from o13.mailer.shopify.com ([149.72.221.62])
by mail.as397444.net with esmtps TLS1.3
Philip Prindeville writes:
>> That looks very familiar. I was having timeouts, and saw that in the
>> logs, on certain messages. I ended up nuking and rebuilding my TXREP
>> database and then things were ok.
>>
>> That doesn't explain why we can't find the rule, which is a good
>> question.
> On Nov 15, 2021, at 5:06 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
>
> Philip Prindeville writes:
>
>> Ah, the rule _eval_tests_type11_pri0_set1() took 4:20.
>>
>> Why can't I even find the rule?
>
> That looks very familiar. I was having timeouts, and saw that in the
> logs, on certain messages. I
Philip Prindeville writes:
> Ah, the rule _eval_tests_type11_pri0_set1() took 4:20.
>
> Why can't I even find the rule?
That looks very familiar. I was having timeouts, and saw that in the
logs, on certain messages. I ended up nuking and rebuilding my TXREP
database and then things were ok.
> On Nov 12, 2021, at 10:35 PM, Henrik K wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 07:49:00PM -0800, John Hardin wrote:
>>
>> What would be helpful here would be logging of when a rule *starts*
>> evaluation. Normally that would be painful, but for tracking a runaway it
>> would be useful. Perhaps
> On Nov 12, 2021, at 8:49 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>> I got the message, saved it to a flat file, and ran "spamassassin -t -D
>> rules < netdev.eml" and saw:
>>
>> ...
>> Nov 12 11:45:38.048 [36367] dbg: rules: ran eval rule
I cannot make that line of text into a coherent English sentence.
May I pray for pardon my Lord. My english is not nativ.
Here you can test it
Mail with:
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
getting "MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.741"
Base64 generate with site:
12 matches
Mail list logo
