Re: Dropping mail

Dianne Skoll wrote: On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 14:39:43 -0500 (CDT) David B Funk wrote: [snip] Define two classes of recipients: class A == all users who want everything class B == all users who want "standard" filtering This works if you have a limited

Re: how to enable autolearn?

Marc Stürmer wrote: Am 2017-01-09 22:30, schrieb L A Walsh: I have: bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -5.0 bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 10.0 In order for autolearn to work you need at least 200 trained messages in the ham and spam category. If the filter doesn't know enough mails yet

Re: how to enable autolearn?

John Hardin wrote: On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, L A Walsh wrote: I have: bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -5.0 bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 10.0 in my user_prefs. When I get a message though, I see autolearn being set to 'no': X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=18.7 req=4.8..autolearn=no

Re: How to report spam to mailspike

Dave Warren wrote: On 2014-08-29 02:38, Marcin Mirosław wrote: So what should I do in your opinion? I'm getting spam to my private spamtrap so I can't fill fields about company - it doesn't matter where I'm hired for reporting spam. What if I would be unemployed? Then I would have to lie about

Re: Advice sought on how to convince irresponsible Megapath ISP.

Karsten Br�� wrote: Similarly, your scripts do not reject messages, but choose not to fetch them. === No... fetchmail fetches them, sendmail rejects them because they don't have a resolvable domain. My sorting and spamassassin scripts get called after the

Re: SA 3.3.2 buggie? -- message that DB file doesn't exist -- but systrace shows successful lock and open!

Michael Scheidell wrote: On 1/16/12 9:36 AM, Linda Walsh wrote: This is not permission problem -- Message I get: have you tried to upgrade to the released version? 3.3.2? 3.0.2 was obsolete 6 years ago. --- Well, I could pretend like you wouldn't have guessed it was a typo and tell

SA 3.0.2 buggie? -- message that DB file doesn't exist -- but systrace shows successful lock and open!

This is not permission problem -- Message I get: bayes: cannot open bayes databases /home/lw_spam/.spamassassin/bayes_* R/O: tie failed: bayes: cannot open bayes databases /home/lw_spam/.spamassassin/bayes_* R/W: tie failed: No such file or directory --- Except I followed it through using

BUGs? (Re: Upgraded to new spamassassin(3.3.2(, and now it won't work (no rules.....ran sa-update, nada...)_

Linda Walsh wrote: Sorry, included that in my subject I did run sa-update, all it says (put it in verbose mode) is that the rules are up to date. Initially it did download the rules into /var/lib/spamassassin/version/more subdirs. Those files are still there, but spamd is, apparently

Upgraded to new spamassassin(3.3.2(, and now it won't work (no rules.....ran sa-update, nada...

I wanted to try to head off an increasing spam count I'd gotten since I upgraded my suse server to 11.4 ... So I tried cpan to goto 3.3.2, but now...it says .. no rules!...I've tried putting rules in just about every dir I can think of... I had it running as as a daemon before - I thought it

Re: Upgraded to new spamassassin(3.3.2(, and now it won't work (no rules.....ran sa-update, nada...

Sorry, included that in my subject I did run sa-update, all it says (put it in verbose mode) is that the rules are up to date. Initially it did download the rules into /var/lib/spamassassin/version/more subdirs. Those files are still there, but spamd is, apparently, not seeing them.

Re: OT: Nehelam's New HT ability....

Per Jessen wrote: But how about the core subject here - the hyperthreading? Have you noticed anything very different wrt that? I haven't, but it will certainly depend on your workload. Definitely will depend on workload. But I noticed more power consumption and it seemed to

Re: HT-perf, paralism, thruput+latncy (dsk, net, RBLs) powr usg/meas, perlMiltring ISP's reducng spamd latency

that's the prob. On 8 Aug 2009, Linda Walsh spake thusly: OK, you've out-RAIDed me. It's a server. Mostly unraided...sorta...4 of them are in 2 VD's in mirror mode. the system disk is a 15K SAS, but only 70G space. The rest are what RAID are supposed to be -- Redundant Arrays

Re: OT: Nehelam's New HT ability.... and ability to handle spamd high load (preheating cache?)

of emails (not that I'm off line for that long usually) -- but it's sorta too bad bind doesn't save it's DB on disk on a shutdown, and read it back in after a reboot -- and then expire if needed... Nix wrote: On 1 Aug 2009, Linda Walsh stated: Per Jessen wrote: Not sure about that - AFAICT, it's

Re: Parallelizing Spam Assassin

It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get Americans all disturbed. Funny, used to be the other way around...but well...times change. Justin Mason wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32, rich...@buzzhost.co.ukrich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: Imagine what Barracuda

Re: Parallelizing Spam Assassin

May I point out, that while you may find the language crude -- it isn't language that would violate FTC standards in that in used any of the 7 or so 'unmentionable words'... People -- these standards of 'crude language' really need to be strongly held 'in check' -- the US is 'supposed' to be

Re: Parallelizing Spam Assassin

Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores that were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores, or HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed down a good many workloads unless they were tightly constructed to work on the same data in

Re: OT: Nehelam's New HT ability....

Per Jessen wrote: Not sure about that - AFAICT, it's exactly the same technology. (I haven't done in exhaustive tests though). Supposedly 'Very' different (I hope)... 1) You can't turn it off in the BIOS 2) claim of benefit from increased cache (FALSE), (have older 2x2 Dual

AWL functionality messed up?

Bowie Bailey wrote: Linda Walsh wrote: I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL. Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your AWL. This is probably the most misunderstood component of SA

Re: my AWL messed up?

Bowie Bailey wrote: Linda Walsh wrote: I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL. Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your AWL. This is probably the most misunderstood component of SA

Re: AWL functionality messed up?

Jeff Mincy wrote: From: Linda Walsh sa-u...@tlinx.org Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:48:43 -0700 Bowie Bailey wrote: At face value, this seems very counter productive. You still aren't understanding the wiki or the AWL scoring or what AWL is trying to do

new netset warn msg (howto avoid?)

I see this message coming out of my SA alot these days since upgrading to 3.2.5: [23920] warn: netset: cannot include 127.0.0.0/8 as it has already been included Where is this local net being 'included', and how can I suppress the duplicate inclusion message? Thanks, linda

Re: new netset warn msg (howto avoid?)

Jari Fredriksson wrote: I see this message coming out of my SA alot these days since upgrading to 3.2.5: [23920] warn: netset: cannot include 127.0.0.0/8 as it has already been included Where is this local net being 'included', and how can I suppress the duplicate inclusion message?

Re: user-db size, excess growth...limits ignored

LuKreme wrote: On 1-Apr-2009, at 13:27, Linda Walsh wrote: *ouch* -- you mean each message writes out an 80MB white-list file? That's alot of I/O per message, no wonder spamd seems to be slowing down... No these are DB files. Data is added to them, this does not necessitate

One BUG found: userpref whitelist pattern BUG/DOC prob;

Bowie Bailey wrote: Linda Walsh wrote: I get many emails addressed to internal sendmail id's. 123...@mydomain, 1abd56.ef7...@mydomain (seem to fit a basic pattern but don't know how to specify the pattern (or I don't have it right): (start of an email-address)[0-9][0-9a-fa-f

Re: user-db size, excess growth...limits ignored

01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789 Matt Kettler wrote: Linda Walsh wrote: Matt Kettler wrote: I see 3 DB's in my user directory (.spamassassin). auto-whitelist (~80MB), bayes_seen (~40MB), bayes_toks (~20MB) expiry will only affect

Re: user-db size, content confusions (how many toks?)

Matt Kettler wrote: I see 3 DB's in my user directory (.spamassassin). auto-whitelist (~80MB), bayes_seen (~40MB), bayes_toks (~20MB) Was trying to find relation of 'bayes_expiry_max_db_size' to the physical size of the above files. --- expiry will only affect bayes_toks.

user-db size, content confusions (how many toks?)

I see 3 DB's in my user directory (.spamassassin). auto-whitelist (~80MB) bayes_seen (~40MB) bayes_toks (~20MB) Was trying to find relation of 'bayes_expiry_max_db_size' to the physical size of the above files. I'm finding some answers, I've run into some seeming contradictions.

Re: What is AWL: _Average-Whitelister_....

John Hardin wrote: What is AWL rule? Why it gives so different amount of points? Auto Whitelist is a misleading name. It is actually a score averager. Since the points it applies are based on the historical scoring from that sender, the score will vary by who the sender is and when the

Re: userpref whitelist pattern problem

LuKreme wrote: On 13-Mar-2009, at 12:58, Linda Walsh wrote: I get many emails addressed to internal sendmail id's. 123...@mydomain or 1abd56.ef7...@mydomain (seem to fit a basic pattern but don't know how to specify the pattern (or I don't have it right): (start of an email-address)[0-9

whitelist pattern problem

I get many emails addressed to internal sendmail id's. 123...@mydomain 1abd56.ef7...@mydomain (seem to fit a basic pattern but don't know how to specify the pattern (or I don't have it right): (start of an email-address)[0-9][0-9a-fa-f\@mydomain by start of an email, addr, I mean inside

Re: whitelist pattern problem in userpref-whitelisting

, not the full perlregexp set (which they below example you gave me would be an excellent example!) ... I don't see 'header' as a usable line in userprefs. thanks, -linda Bowie Bailey wrote: Linda Walsh wrote: I get many emails addressed to internal sendmail id's. 123...@mydomain, 1abd56.ef7

RFE? Or is there an easy way to do this?

I have some email accounts that I use with particular vendors or lists. I have a few email accounts only known to a single person or company. What I'd like to do is someway of white-listing a to-addr if it is from a list of from-addrselse add something (constant?) to its spam score. An

Re: junkfiles-bays_toks.expire\d{4-5}

A manual expire run took less than 2 minutes -- closer to 1 minuteHow impatient is SA ?? John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 18:35 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote: Jul 25 15:28:21 Ishtar spamd[2355]: bayes: expire_old_tokens: child processing timeout at /usr/bin/spamd line 1085, GEN6

Re: junkfiles-bays_toks.expire\d{4-5}

Matt Kettler wrote: What version are you running? reading around the child processing timeout seems to have been a common problem in the 3.1.x series, but I've not seen it reported in the 3.2.x series. --- Erp. I'll try upgrading and see what happens...still have a 3.1.7 installed.

Mail::SpamAssassin 3.2.5 fails: NOT OK

Can't install Mail::SpamAssassin in CPAN... fails at the end... (not whole log, but enough to give context, I hope */usr/bin/perl build/preprocessor -Mconditional -Mvars -DVERSION=3.002005 -DPREFIX=/usr -DDEF_RULES_DIR=/usr/share/spamassassin -DLOCAL_RULES_DIR=/etc/mail/spamassassin

junkfiles-bays_toks.expire\d{4-5}

In my .spamassassin dir, I see lots of files that look like: bayes_toks.expire1098 bayes_toks.expire1243 bayes_toks.expire13494 bayes_toks.expire15029 bayes_toks.expire15761 bayes_toks.expire16349 bayes_toks.expire17370 bayes_toks.expire17385 bayes_toks.expire1754 bayes_toks.expire18183

Re: junkfiles-bays_toks.expire\d{4-5}

Matt Kettler wrote: The fact that they keep laying around is a problem. This suggests SA keeps getting killed before the expire can complete. Do you have any kind of limits set such as CPU time or memory that SA might be running against and dying? You can try kicking off an expire manually

mem use of spamd processes: wasted memory? 'bug'?

I noticed something about my spamd processes. There is a main process at the top that spawns children. 5 of 6 of the top memory (by %) are 'spamd'. 5/6 top Resident (28M for parent), 40m-49m /child (268M total + parent) 5/7 top Data users (26M for parent) 38-47m/child (259M total + parent) So

Re: Discussion side point: levels of Trust

John Hardin wrote: On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, SM wrote: At 17:46 11-06-2008, Linda Walsh wrote: How does one decided on 'trust'? I.e. I think it would be useful to assign a probability to Trust at the least. I mean do I put my ISP in my trusted server list? -- suppose they start

Discussion side point: levels of Trust

Matthias Leisi wrote: 1) This advice: | Tue Jun 10 14:55:36 2008 [72096] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not | configured; it is recommended that you configure trusted_networks manually should not be ignored. Setting trusted_networks would slightly reduce the number of DNS lookups and can avoid

Re: Warning: xxx matches null string many times in regex in Text/Wrap.pm..

a fairly large number of test cases and should know what they changed... (famous last words). -Linda Theo Van Dinter wrote: On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 05:43:12PM -0800, Linda Walsh wrote: I've seen this error message in the past few upgrades (~3.11, .12, .17) and was wondering if anyone else has

Re: Warning: xxx matches null string many times in regex in Text/Wrap.pm..

? Linda ---orig msg follows--- Theo Van Dinter wrote: On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 05:43:12PM -0800, Linda Walsh wrote: I've seen this error message in the past few upgrades (~3.11, .12, .17) and was wondering if anyone else has seen it and knows what the problem is. Discussed so much it's

Warning: xxx matches null string many times in regex in Text/Wrap.pm..

I've seen this error message in the past few upgrades (~3.11, .12, .17) and was wondering if anyone else has seen it and knows what the problem is. --- Dec 24 17:32:53 mailhost spamd[3320]: (?:(?=[\s,]))* matches null string many times in regex; marked by -- HERE in m/\G(?:(?=[\s,]))* -- HERE

light-grey listing..? lkml filter probs catching too much ham.

I'm having problems filtering a list I'm on (lkml). First I had it on normal filter -- but I had too many false positives. Finally switched it to a white-list, but now, many true negatives (spam) get through. Is there a way to light-grey a list -- not a blanket accept all, white-list, but

new problem after upgrade perl modeul to 3.1.4(from 3.1.2)

I just updated to a newer version of spamassin a few days ago. Since then I'm getting regular error messages in my spamlog: Sep 2 03:46:03 Ishtar spamd[13106]: (?:(?=[\s,]))* matches null string many times in regex; marked by -- HERE in m/\G(?:(?=[\s,]))* -- HERE \Z/ at

non-fuzzy body parts in subject: missed

I have been receiving a spate of short messages that don't seem to trigger enough default rules to be knocked out. I was investigating and noticed a discrepancy [bug?] in the rules. One particular email refers to the uniquely Male-Body-Part starting w/P, let's call MBP for purposes discussion.

Re: non-fuzzy body parts in subject: missed

Matt Kettler wrote: Yes it does.. the text of the subject line will match against any body rule. SA pre-pends this so we don't have to have a massive duplication of rules to cover both body and subject. --- Ah. Didn't know that. Different tools, different lingo for message, message

Re: spamcop.net tactics

That doesn't mean it's a moral, an ethical or respectable reason: Spite is reason enough for most people these days. Michele Neylon:: Blacknight.ie wrote: if your IPs end up in there it's usually for a reason. Michele

when to SQL; RFE's (to dev?)

Michael Monnerie wrote: On Samstag, 29. Oktober 2005 06:33 Linda Walsh wrote: Assuming it is some sort of berkeley db format, what is a good cut-over size as a rule-of-thumb...or is there? What should I expect in speeds for sa-learn or spamc? I.e. -- is there a rough guideline for when

3.1 vs. 2.6x 3.0x: Good; when to SQL; RFE's (to dev?)

Finally got the kinks worked out in my SA-3.1 setup last week. Filtered out over 420 spams -- maybe 1 false positive, and it was borderline. The speed on sa-learn has dropped, but that may be unavoidable. But I'm finally getting = spam recognition than I had in 2.63. I have no-online tests

SpmAssn 3.04 v. 2.6x false negative rate: Help???

Ever since I upgraded to the 3.x series I've had a major jump in spams that are getting through. Initially my upgrade was to 3.02 as distributed in SuSE 9.3 and my problems were related to old configuration files/options where NONE of my spam was being tagged into the spam folder (i.e. the SPAM