regards
Nigel
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:28:20 +, Tim Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
I installed 3.1.1 today on a fresh CentOS install and foolishly
neglected to check it hadn't already installed an older version of SA.
Now when I run yum update it lists 3.0.5
Hi All,
I installed 3.1.1 today on a fresh CentOS install and foolishly
neglected to check it hadn't already installed an older version of SA.
Now when I run yum update it lists 3.0.5 as an update. I've installed
3.1.1 from source and am wondering if using yum remove for the 3.0.5
install will
Decrrese!?
Since June my spam %age has gone from 64% to 70.5% of all mail.
It's depressing.
Nigel
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:05:57 +0100, Dean Baldwin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not really. We are still getting around 140,000+ messages a day that are
spam :-(
Matthew Yette wrote:
Has anyone who
for the heads up on my error.
Kind regards
Nigel
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:58:05 -0400, Matt Kettler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Hi All,
This may be old news, but... anyone using abuseseat.org in their RBL's
should probably remove it. I had it running here in my main server
Hi All,
I'm running SA 3.0.4 on FC3. Up to last Thursday (15th) the setup has
worked great. Since then I have been getting a series of pretty
obscene spam through. They are passing SA, though with the content I'm
surprised at this, some of it really could not be construed as
anything but obscene
Apologies all.
I should have checked the raw archives 1st. Those X-NAS headers must
be added by the client. They don't appear in the raw archived
messages.
Thanks to Loren.
Kind regards
Nigel
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:56:36 -0700, Loren Wilton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NAS = Norton Antivirus?
I've used local MySQL on several SA servers before now (without a
cluster). It worked well. I used the same bayes database to 'seed' all
of the servers so they at least started with the same data.
I didn't notice any huge differences in scores and on the whole it
worked well - if inelegantly.
Hi All,
It's 5 SA actually :-D - and I've not noted any problems that didn't
come down to slight differences in config between SA servers, once
standardised they run much the same.
The single MySQL is working well, my only concern being that I still
haven't managed to eliminate a potential
, and if not , roll onto a second (backup) server.
--
Matthew Yette
Senior Engineer - NOC/Operations
MA Polce Consulting, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
315-838-1644 (w)
315-356-0597 (f)
AIM/Yahoo: MAPolceNOC
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Nigel Frankcom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi,
A colleague has written a script to supply some summary (and detail)
statistics for SA.
I've not been able to get anything of much Admin use from sa-stats.pl;
during setup and conf (and day to day running) I'm interested in
scantimes and mean averages.
Craig Morrison has written a script
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
caused :-D
Nigel
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:53:50 -0400, Matt Kettler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b
Point accepted, but - why do they market it as such?
Nigel
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:45:01 -0400, Matt Kettler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Admittedly not much,
My biggest issue was yahoo sporting anti spam options in a spam mail.
My biggest issue would be the assumption
I do wonder if spam fell off at about 12.30 GMT - about the time BT
binned a few adsl's in error... of course
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4175805.stm
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:47:34 -0800, jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: John Wilcock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Menno van Bennekom wrote:
Hi all,
Just a quick note to say, I *finally* got my SA working faster by
adding PTR records for the MySQL server.
The speed difference is astounding, on FC3 the turnaround time on a
test mail has gone from 1 minute plus down to 1 - 2 seconds.
Standard mail is running so much faster that
Hi All,
Did anything change in the SA lists since Sunday?
Have had SA 3.0 running happily here since it came out (win32/cygwin)
- from Sunday I started seeing mail from the list (and annoyingly some
419ers too) with no SA headers at all - a check of the logs for spamd
shows it never even saw
301 - 316 of 316 matches
Mail list logo
