Re: reason why sendmail w/ SA3.4.1 scantime=15.0, delay=00:01:06 w/ SquirrelMail?

2017-07-17 Thread Robert Kudyba
> On Jul 17, 2017, at 11:01 AM, Tom Hendrikx wrote: > > On 17-07-17 16:39, Robert Kudyba wrote: >> >>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Tom Hendrikx >> > wrote: >>> >>> On 17-07-17 16:00, Robert Kudyba wrote: > On Jul 17, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Antony Stone > >

Re: reason why sendmail w/ SA3.4.1 scantime=15.0, delay=00:01:06 w/ SquirrelMail?

2017-07-17 Thread RW
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 11:33:42 -0400 Robert Kudyba wrote: > > try running > > > > spamassassin -D razor2 > > < /usr/share/doc/spamassassin/sample-spam.txt > > > > as the user amavis. > > su - -s /bin/bash amavis -c "spamassassin -D razor2 > < /usr/share/doc/spamassassin/sample-spam.txt" .

Re: reason why sendmail w/ SA3.4.1 scantime=15.0, delay=00:01:06 w/ SquirrelMail?

2017-07-17 Thread Tom Hendrikx
On 17-07-17 16:39, Robert Kudyba wrote: > >> On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Tom Hendrikx > > wrote: >> >> On 17-07-17 16:00, Robert Kudyba wrote: >>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Antony Stone >>>

Re: reason why sendmail w/ SA3.4.1 scantime=15.0, delay=00:01:06 w/ SquirrelMail?

2017-07-17 Thread RW
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:39:39 -0400 Robert Kudyba wrote: > > On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Tom Hendrikx > > wrote: > > The error is still the same. Do you even have access to those > > cloudmark razor servers? Does razor work outside of > > spamassassin/amavisd? > > Is that supposed to be a pa

Re: reason why sendmail w/ SA3.4.1 scantime=15.0, delay=00:01:06 w/ SquirrelMail?

2017-07-17 Thread Robert Kudyba
> On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Tom Hendrikx wrote: > > On 17-07-17 16:00, Robert Kudyba wrote: >> >>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Antony Stone >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> On Monday 17 July 2017 at 14:25:17, Robert Kudyba wrote: >>> > On Jul 1

Re: reason why sendmail w/ SA3.4.1 scantime=15.0, delay=00:01:06 w/ SquirrelMail?

2017-07-17 Thread Tom Hendrikx
On 17-07-17 16:00, Robert Kudyba wrote: > >> On Jul 17, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Antony Stone >> > > wrote: >> >> On Monday 17 July 2017 at 14:25:17, Robert Kudyba wrote: >> On Jul 14, 2017, at 4:00 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas mailto:uh...@fantoma

Re: reason why sendmail w/ SA3.4.1 scantime=15.0, delay=00:01:06 w/ SquirrelMail?

2017-07-17 Thread Robert Kudyba
> On Jul 17, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Antony Stone > wrote: > > On Monday 17 July 2017 at 14:25:17, Robert Kudyba wrote: > >>> On Jul 14, 2017, at 4:00 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas > wrote: Robert Kudyba wrote: > Over the past few days sending mail via SquirrelMail has become > glacial.

Re: reason why sendmail w/ SA3.4.1 scantime=15.0, delay=00:01:06 w/ SquirrelMail?

2017-07-17 Thread Antony Stone
On Monday 17 July 2017 at 14:25:17, Robert Kudyba wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2017, at 4:00 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >> Robert Kudyba wrote: > >>> Over the past few days sending mail via SquirrelMail has become > >>> glacial. The load on the server is under 1. I've restarted the SA, > >>>

Re: reason why sendmail w/ SA3.4.1 scantime=15.0, delay=00:01:06 w/ SquirrelMail?

2017-07-17 Thread Robert Kudyba
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 4:00 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >> Robert Kudyba wrote: >>> Over the past few days sending mail via SquirrelMail has become glacial. >>> The load on the server is under 1. I've restarted the SA, sendmail and >>> dovecot processes several times. Here are >>> some

Re: reason why sendmail w/ SA3.4.1 scantime=15.0, delay=00:01:06 w/ SquirrelMail?

2017-07-14 Thread RW
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 10:00:45 +0200 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >Robert Kudyba wrote: > >> Jul 13 23:04:05 storm spamd[13378]: spamd: processing message > >> <9ca00a710c6bfad3d60dd424cd79ac19.squirrel@our-domain> for > >> root:1001 Jul 13 23:04:20 storm spamd[13378]: spamd: clean message >

Re: reason why sendmail w/ SA3.4.1 scantime=15.0, delay=00:01:06 w/ SquirrelMail?

2017-07-14 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
Robert Kudyba wrote: Over the past few days sending mail via SquirrelMail has become glacial. The load on the server is under 1. I've restarted the SA, sendmail and dovecot processes several times. Here are some logs I can provide any settings if desired. tried to run a message through "spam

Re: reason why sendmail w/ SA3.4.1 scantime=15.0, delay=00:01:06 w/ SquirrelMail?

2017-07-13 Thread Andrzej A. Filip
Robert Kudyba wrote: > n*5s delay *may* indicate unresponsive DNS host(s)/resolver(s) in /etc/hots > [ at least it should be ruled out ] > > Nah both are university DNS servers that are current. > > How long does it take to get SMTP greeting message when you start > "/usr/sbin/sendmail -bs" a

Re: reason why sendmail w/ SA3.4.1 scantime=15.0, delay=00:01:06 w/ SquirrelMail?

2017-07-13 Thread Robert Kudyba
> n*5s delay *may* indicate unresponsive DNS host(s)/resolver(s) in /etc/hots > [ at least it should be ruled out ] > Nah both are university DNS servers that are current. > > How long does it take to get SMTP greeting message when you start > "/usr/sbin/sendmail -bs" as a non root user? > [ Is i

Re: reason why sendmail w/ SA3.4.1 scantime=15.0, delay=00:01:06 w/ SquirrelMail?

2017-07-13 Thread Andrzej A. Filip
Robert Kudyba wrote: > Over the past few days sending mail via SquirrelMail has become glacial. The > load on the server is under 1. I've restarted the SA, sendmail and dovecot > processes several times. Here are > some logs I can provide any settings if desired. > > Jul 13 23:03:24 storm sendma

reason why sendmail w/ SA3.4.1 scantime=15.0, delay=00:01:06 w/ SquirrelMail?

2017-07-13 Thread Robert Kudyba
Over the past few days sending mail via SquirrelMail has become glacial. The load on the server is under 1. I've restarted the SA, sendmail and dovecot processes several times. Here are some logs I can provide any settings if desired. Jul 13 23:03:24 storm sendmail[14504]: v6E33EOQ014504: Authent