--On Friday, December 08, 2006 12:20 AM -0500 Duncan Findlay
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's a good point. Those of us packaging SpamAssassin for
distributions should think about this. :-) Will it be okay if all
Debian users start running sa-update on the same minute of the hour?
Are those
Jason Haar writes:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
What's stopping you from running sa-update more frequently? I run it
once an hour on most of my systems.
May I propose that sa-update should become merged into spamd? (or
daemonized)
I'm thinking of lessons learned with ClamAV. Once upon a
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 09:31:36AM +, Justin Mason wrote:
and got freshclam to run as a daemon - so it
could randomly sleep between lookups - and thus spread the load.
I can think of a useful modification -- change sa-update so that, if it's
run non-interactively, it sleeps for a
Jason Haar wrote:
May I propose that sa-update should become merged into spamd? (or
daemonized)
Merging would be bad. There are plenty of us using methods other than
spamd to call SpamAssassin.
--
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications www.speed.net
Kelson wrote:
Jason Haar wrote:
May I propose that sa-update should become merged into spamd? (or
daemonized)
Merging would be bad. There are plenty of us using methods other than
spamd to call SpamAssassin.
I dont think anyone is using spamd to call SpamAssassin.
Jim Maul writes:
Kelson wrote:
Jason Haar wrote:
May I propose that sa-update should become merged into spamd? (or
daemonized)
Merging would be bad. There are plenty of us using methods other than
spamd to call SpamAssassin.
I dont think anyone is using spamd to call
Justin Mason wrote:
Jim Maul writes:
Kelson wrote:
Jason Haar wrote:
May I propose that sa-update should become merged into spamd? (or
daemonized)
Merging would be bad. There are plenty of us using methods other than
spamd to call SpamAssassin.
I dont think anyone is using spamd to call
Jim Maul writes:
Justin Mason wrote:
Jim Maul writes:
Kelson wrote:
Jason Haar wrote:
May I propose that sa-update should become merged into spamd? (or
daemonized)
Merging would be bad. There are plenty of us using methods other than
spamd to call SpamAssassin.
I dont think
Jim Maul wrote:
oh? Care to explain how spamd would call spamassassin? That would be a
neat trick ;)
Neat, but really simple with the plugin interface. :)
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 01:38:54PM -0500, Jim Maul wrote:
I dont think anyone is using spamd to call SpamAssassin.
oh? Care to explain how spamd would call spamassassin? That would be a neat
trick ;)
Alright... I'm being pedantic, but you're confusing spamassassin and
SpamAssassin.
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 08:56:45PM +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
If all SA users set sa-update to run hourly - then when an update comes
out, you will have *all* SA users contacting the same sites
simultaneously for the downloads. Och...
That's a good point. Those of us packaging SpamAssassin
Duncan Findlay wrote:
Anyways... maybe I should get back to doing something useful like
studying for tomorrow's exam...
Boo exams... road trip! I hear the 401 is fun at this time of year. ;)
For certain kinds of spam, it would be advantageous to have a highly
dynamic set of rules (eg stock spams). The usual methods (à la sa-update)
are usually slow - slow as in once or twice a day; however I think it
would make sense to have them fast - fast as in continuously updated.
As such, DNS
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:26:08PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:
For certain kinds of spam, it would be advantageous to have a highly
dynamic set of rules (eg stock spams). The usual methods (à la sa-update)
are usually slow - slow as in once or twice a day; however I think it
would make sense
Matthias Leisi wrote:
For certain kinds of spam, it would be advantageous to have a highly
dynamic set of rules (eg stock spams). The usual methods (à la sa-update)
are usually slow - slow as in once or twice a day; however I think it
would make sense to have them fast - fast as in continuously
--On Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:26 PM +0100 Matthias Leisi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As such, DNS could be used as a transport mechanism with reasonably chosen
TTLs.
sa-update already uses DNS to check for new updates. The record provides
the latest version of the update rule set. The
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
What's stopping you from running sa-update more frequently? I run it
once an hour on most of my systems.
May I propose that sa-update should become merged into spamd? (or
daemonized)
I'm thinking of lessons learned with ClamAV. Once upon a time they
relied on people
17 matches
Mail list logo
