- Original Message -
From: Martin.Hepworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: SpamAssassin Users users@spamassassin.apache.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: SA date on 2 tmp file 1970
Mark
you mean 3.2.3 rather than 2.3.2??? ;-)
--
martin
Yes!
snip
SpamD seems to die every now and again (every couple of days) and though I
have a script which checks regularly for various key services and restarts
them if they are missing, it is letting a couple of spam through each
time...
The error message I am getting in my maillog when this happens is:
hi, i used spamcontrol-2316 with Qmail 1.03. the
validrcptto patch is compatible with this? . Spmacontrol does not just that ?.
Thank you so much.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: High Qmail-Server Load
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:59:50 -0700
hi, i used spamcontrol-2316 with Qmail 1.03. the
validrcptto patch is compatible with this? . Spmacontrol does not just that ?.
Thank you so much.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: High Qmail-Server Load
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:59:50 -0700
hi, i used spamcontrol-2316 with Qmail 1.03. the
validrcptto patch is compatible with this? . Spmacontrol does not just that ?.
Thank you so much.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: High Qmail-Server Load
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:59:50 -0700
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign ignorance
to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
their abuse mailbox? (Like 99% of mail sent there isn't going to
score positively...)
Sigh.
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign
ignorance to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
their abuse mailbox? (Like 99% of mail sent there isn't going to
score
Qnet .. schrieb:
Hi Guys,
I'm running a Qmail server with spamassassin + clamav + Simscam.
The server i'm using is a HP ML110 CPU PIV (3.2 GHZ) 2mb chache , 1GB RAM.
The problem is, the i'm getting very high load because spamd is the processes
which take the most part of the load
Steven Kurylo wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign
ignorance to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
their abuse mailbox? (Like 99% of mail sent there
Qnet .. schrieb:
Hi Guys,
I'm running a Qmail server with spamassassin + clamav + Simscam.
The server i'm using is a HP ML110 CPU PIV (3.2 GHZ) 2mb chache , 1GB RAM.
The problem is, the i'm getting very high load because spamd is the processes
which take the most part of the load
At 10:16 AM 11/5/2007, Qnet .. wrote:
Hi,
the Spamcontrol do not accept the non-existent addresses the server?
or a have to Patch my existing Server with
http://qmail.jms1.net/patches/validrcptto.cdb.shtmlValidRcptTo.cdb
to that does just this?..
Than You, sorry for my bad english
Please
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:20:11 -0800
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Spamcontrol Question !!
At 10:16 AM 11/5/2007, Qnet .. wrote:
Hi,
the Spamcontrol do not accept the non-existent addresses the server?
or a have to Patch my existing Server
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Qnet .. wrote:
but spamcontrol is not spamassassin, spamcontrol is installed in my Qmail
server and i want to kwon if spamcontrol accept or not non-existent addresses.
Thank You-
If SpamControl is not SpamAssassin, perhaps a SpamAssassin list is not
the best place to ask
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:20:11 -0800
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Spamcontrol Question !!
At 10:16 AM 11/5/2007, Qnet .. wrote:
Hi,
the Spamcontrol do not accept the non-existent addresses the server?
or a have to Patch my existing Server
At 10:29 AM 11/5/2007, Qnet .. wrote:
sorry for 3 copies,
but spamcontrol is not spamassassin, spamcontrol is installed in my
Qmail server and i want to kwon if spamcontrol accept or not
non-existent addresses.
Thank You-
If spamcontrol is not spamassassin, why ask on a spamassassin
Hi,
My Qmail server work with spamassassin + clamav. The processes Spamd take the
most part of the load so it 's Spamassassin crash. Do you know any way to
solve it?
Please look the attach file( top -d1 ). Thank you so munch !
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Steven Kurylo wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign
ignorance to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
their abuse mailbox?
Qnet .. wrote:
Hi,
My Qmail server work with spamassassin + clamav. The processes Spamd
take the most part of the *load *so it 's Spamassassin crash. Do you
know any way to solve it?
Please look the attach file( top -d1 ). Thank you so munch !
Hello All,
I have a situation where a user gets a blank subject, and blank body, there
is really NO information in the email so it's not possible to add too much
info here.
I believe the following is the transaction between postfix and then spamd I
believe re-injecting the message:
Nov
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Steven Kurylo wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign
ignorance to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
-Original Message-
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 8:38 AM
To: Joey
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Confirm configuration settings
After my post Help figuring our why SA is taking like 1.5 minutes to
filter I
From: Qnet .. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 2:47 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Spamd HIGH LOAD
Hi,
My Qmail server work with spamassassin + clamav. The processes Spamd take
the most part of the load so it 's Spamassassin crash. Do you know any
On 11/5/07, Joey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a situation where a user gets a blank subject, and blank body, there
is really NO information in the email so it's not possible to add too much
info here.
I believe the following is the transaction between postfix and then spamd I
believe
I used /usr/bin/sa-update –D allways. then restart. but I have the load problem
still. Do you know other way to solve it? thanks.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Spamd HIGH LOAD
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 16:11:57 -0500
From: Qnet ..
How do you start spamassassin?
On 11/5/07, Qnet .. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I used /usr/bin/sa-update –D allways. then restart. but I have the load
problem still. Do you know other way to solve it? thanks.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Spamd HIGH
At 14:13 05-11-2007, Qnet .. wrote:
I used /usr/bin/sa-update D allways. then
restart. but I have the load problem still. Do
you know other way to solve it? thanks.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/FasterPerformance
Regards,
-sm
I start :
#!/bin/sh
# spamassassin This script starts and
stops the spamd daemon
#
PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin
case
$1 in
start)
cd
/
/usr/bin/spamd -v -u vpopmail -m 60 -x -q -s stderr -r /var/run/spamd/spamd.pid
\
-i 172.16.10.14 -A
Qnet .. wrote:
I start :
#!/bin/sh
# spamassassin This script starts and stops the spamd daemon
#
PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin
case $1 in
start)
cd /
/usr/bin/spamd -v -u vpopmail -m 60 -x -q -s stderr -r
/var/run/spamd/spamd.pid \
-i
Matt Kettler wrote:
Your swap used should never be more than mem free if you can
avoid it.
Note: by mem free I mean total free memory.. i.e.: mem free +
buffers + cache.
It's quite normal for just the free memory number to be low. Most OS's
will turn free memory into a really big disk
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Well, Yahoo is a waste of time for other reasons, right? They
tell you that it doesn't come from their site...
I generally don't get spam from Yahoo MTAs; most of my reporting is
of fraud spams with yahoo contact addresses.
--
John Hardin
Hi,
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign ignorance
to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
their abuse mailbox? (Like 99% of mail sent there isn't going to
score positively...)
If
And not to point fingers, how to react with a narrow minded sysadmin
that ban per IP?
From my legitimate mail server in Thailand, that has never been
blacklisted as far as I know:
mailon45: telnet mail.redfish-solutions.com 25
Trying 66.232.79.143...
Connected to
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 29.10.07 10:19, tad1214 wrote:
Ok so I just threw a few hundred (thousand?) hams at it, we will see if
that
helps, here is my dump magic
0.000 0 110832 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 11160 0 non-token
Joey wrote:
A lot of the SARE rules support sa-update, as can be found here.
http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/sare-sa-update-howto.txt
I have seen this page before, but I wasn't able to see what cf's are available
there, is there another link that you are aware of?
I have scanned
Hi,
adding to the list, I recently came across domain contacts like
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(not sure about the exact domain name)
This service also refuses some mails, particularly those that are sent via
one of the mail servers of german telecom and it is operated by verisign
Wolfgang Hamann
Olivier Nicole wrote:
And not to point fingers, how to react with a narrow minded sysadmin
that ban per IP?
From my legitimate mail server in Thailand, that has never been
blacklisted as far as I know:
mailon45: telnet mail.redfish-solutions.com 25
Trying 66.232.79.143...
Connected
Just got a thing that claims to come from email-109.paypal.com. It
backtracks to there, too.
pts rule name description
-- --
0.0 DK_POLICY_TESTING Domain Keys: policy says domain is testing DK
0.0
It's not a matter of cultural imperialism, if that's what you're getting at.
It's an acknowledgment of the importance of the rule of law in cyberspace.
Except that I don't think it is anything close to a rule of law, but
rather a sign of short view.
As I said, I doubt you ever got any spam
Olivier Nicole wrote:
It's not a matter of cultural imperialism, if that's what you're getting at.
It's an acknowledgment of the importance of the rule of law in cyberspace.
Except that I don't think it is anything close to a rule of law, but
rather a sign of short view.
As I said, I
39 matches
Mail list logo
