sorry, I did not know that, I thought it is disabled by default
2015.09.09. 14:12 keltezéssel, Antony Stone írta:
On Wednesday 09 September 2015 at 13:54:44, Farkas Zsolt wrote:
you made a point, but /etc/spamassassin/local.cf looks like:
...
# Use Bayesian classifier (default: 1)
#
#use_b
On 9/9/2015 8:18 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.09.2015 um 14:08 schrieb Farkas Zsolt:
please find the original incoming email saved by SA:
http://pastebin.com/mszg5nJe
the email notification received back from SA on spamadmin account
http://pastebin.com/0UTvT9tQ
i would say this is the wron
Am 09.09.2015 um 14:08 schrieb Farkas Zsolt:
please find the original incoming email saved by SA:
http://pastebin.com/mszg5nJe
the email notification received back from SA on spamadmin account
http://pastebin.com/0UTvT9tQ
i would say this is the wrong mailing-list since you are running amavis
On Wednesday 09 September 2015 at 13:52:31, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:14:04 +0200
>
> Antony Stone wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 September 2015 at 13:08:45, Farkas Zsolt wrote:
> > > Content analysis details: (13.1 points, 15.0 required)
> >
> > You said earlier "it gave 10 point for badw
On Wednesday 09 September 2015 at 13:54:44, Farkas Zsolt wrote:
> you made a point, but /etc/spamassassin/local.cf looks like:
>
> ...
> # Use Bayesian classifier (default: 1)
> #
> #use_bayes 1
So, you have not set it to 0, to disable Bayes; you have left it at the
default, which is 1, there
Hello,
please find the original incoming email saved by SA:
http://pastebin.com/mszg5nJe
the email notification received back from SA on spamadmin account
http://pastebin.com/0UTvT9tQ
KR, Zsolt
2015.09.09. 13:42 keltezéssel, Matus UHLAR - fantomas írta:
Hello,
what about starting with the lo
you made a point, but /etc/spamassassin/local.cf looks like:
...
# Use Bayesian classifier (default: 1)
#
#use_bayes 1
# Bayesian classifier auto-learning (default: 1)
#
#bayes_auto_learn 1
...
KR, Zsolt
2015.09.09. 13:49 keltezéssel, Antony Stone írta:
On Wednesday 09 September 2015 at
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:14:04 +0200
Antony Stone wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 September 2015 at 13:08:45, Farkas Zsolt wrote:
>
> > Content analysis details: (13.1 points, 15.0 required)
> >
> You said earlier "it gave 10 point for badword rule but there was no
> match".
>
> I see no badword rule
This was the email what i receive from SA for spamadmin email account
I am sending the links in few minutes
2015.09.09. 13:42 keltezéssel, Matus UHLAR - fantomas írta:
Hello,
what about starting with the log-entries showing the matched rules
from some of that messages from the very first star
On Wednesday 09 September 2015 at 13:42:31, Farkas Zsolt wrote:
> badword rule is now disabled, SA running with limited functionality,
> higher limit (15 insted of 4.9), bayes disabled
How have you disabled Bayes? The message below has 3.5 points for Bayes_99
Antony.
> there are two problems
badword rule is now disabled, SA running with limited functionality,
higher limit (15 insted of 4.9), bayes disabled
there are two problems now:
-messages marked as SPAM but they are below limit (limit at 15 but at
13.1 marked as spam) this has no connection with disabled or enabled badword
-
Hello,
what about starting with the log-entries showing the matched rules
from some of that messages from the very first start? "it don't
work as i expect" is not enough and the only correct answer would
be "i am sorry for you"
On 09.09.15 13:08, Farkas Zsolt wrote:
it has been done at the s
On Wednesday 09 September 2015 at 13:08:45, Farkas Zsolt wrote:
> Content analysis details: (13.1 points, 15.0 required)
>
> pts rule name description
> --
> -- 3.5 BAYES_99
>BODY: Bayes spam
what about starting with the log-entries showing the matched rules
from some of that messages from the very first start? "it don't work
as i expect" is not enough and the only correct answer would be "i am
sorry for you"
it has been done at the start, but there is no visible reason for the
Am 09.09.2015 um 12:15 schrieb Farkas Zsolt:
your first post sounded like spam is coming through and not FP's
I mean: lot of emails were marked as SPAM when the limit was at 4.9,
and it started from one day to another without config or system change
now the limit is at 15 but it sill filte
your first post sounded like spam is coming through and not FP's
I mean: lot of emails were marked as SPAM when the limit was at 4.9,
and it started from one day to another without config or system change
now the limit is at 15 but it sill filters mais below 15 without a reason
so arte they
Am 09.09.2015 um 11:20 schrieb Farkas Zsolt:
2015.09.09. 11:02 keltezéssel, Reindl Harald írta:
Am 09.09.2015 um 10:56 schrieb Farkas Zsolt:
Can you help me with please?
One of our SA installation has gone mad since a few days:
-it is filtering mails below required points:
Content analysis
Am 09.09.2015 um 10:56 schrieb Farkas Zsolt:
One of our SA installation has gone mad since a few days:
Content analysis details: (12.5 points, 15.0 required)
Content analysis details: (10.7 points, 15.0 required)
2015.09.09. 11:02 keltezéssel, Reindl Harald írta:
15.0 required - seriously?
2015.09.09. 11:02 keltezéssel, Reindl Harald írta:
Am 09.09.2015 um 10:56 schrieb Farkas Zsolt:
Can you help me with please?
One of our SA installation has gone mad since a few days:
-it is filtering mails below required points:
Content analysis details: (12.5 points, 15.0 required)
Content a
Am 09.09.2015 um 10:56 schrieb Farkas Zsolt:
Can you help me with please?
One of our SA installation has gone mad since a few days:
-it is filtering mails below required points:
Content analysis details: (12.5 points, 15.0 required)
Content analysis details: (10.7 points, 15.0 required)
15.0
Hello,
Can you help me with please?
One of our SA installation has gone mad since a few days:
-it is filtering mails below required points:
Content analysis details: (12.5 points, 15.0 required)
Content analysis details: (10.7 points, 15.0 required)
...
-it has been filtering bad words but wit
Andreas Pettersson wrote:
> Jürgen Herz wrote:
>
>>What I still get and not understand is
>>warn: bayes: cannot open bayes databases /var/spool/exim4/.spamassa
>>ssin/bayes_* R/W: lock failed: File exists
>>
>>
>
> Make sure the file permissions hasn't changed when you ran the manual
> expire.
Jürgen Herz wrote:
What I still get and not understand is
warn: bayes: cannot open bayes databases /var/spool/exim4/.spamassa
ssin/bayes_* R/W: lock failed: File exists
Make sure the file permissions hasn't changed when you ran the manual
expire.
Regards,
Andreas
Jürgen Herz wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> If your --force-expire only took 19 seconds, I would guess that you
>> are not talking to the same database. Make sure you are logged in as
>> the same user that is having the problem when you run the
>> --force-expire.
>
> Uh, that's a very good point.
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Jürgen Herz wrote:
>> After a forced manual Bayes expire it didn't go better. And since the
>> --force-expire run only took 19 secs it seems unlikely the db was to
>> huge (the whole .spamassassin folder is 52 MB where bayes_toks is 4
>> MB, the 44 bayes_toks.expire* are about
Jürgen Herz wrote:
> Loren Wilton wrote:
> > > warn: bayes: expire_old_tokens: child processing timeout at
> > > /usr/sbin/spamd line 1086. (Spamd then takes very long to scan a
> > > mail:
> > > info: spamd: clean message (0.0/5.0) for Debian-exim:106 in 305.0
> > > seconds, 3781 bytes.)
> >
> >
Loren Wilton wrote:
>> warn: bayes: expire_old_tokens: child processing timeout at
>> /usr/sbin/spamd line 1086.
>> (Spamd then takes very long to scan a mail:
>> info: spamd: clean message (0.0/5.0) for Debian-exim:106 in 305.0
>> seconds, 3781 bytes.)
>
> The child is trying to run a Bayes expir
Loren Wilton wrote:
> The child is trying to run a Bayes expire, apparently on a large Bayes
> database that hasn't had a successful expiry run in some time. This attempt
> to process the Bayes database is probably taking over 300 seconds, and the
> child is being timed out and killed by somet
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
warn: bayes: expire_old_tokens: child processing timeout at
/usr/sbin/spamd line 1086.
(Spamd then takes very long to scan a mail:
info: spamd: clean message (0.0/5.0) for Debian-exim:106 in 305.0
seconds, 3781 bytes.)
The child is trying to run a Bayes
warn: bayes: expire_old_tokens: child processing timeout at
/usr/sbin/spamd line 1086.
(Spamd then takes very long to scan a mail:
info: spamd: clean message (0.0/5.0) for Debian-exim:106 in 305.0
seconds, 3781 bytes.)
The child is trying to run a Bayes expire, apparently on a large Bayes
datab
Hello!
I'm running Exim together with spamc/spamd on my box for months now
without problems. But a week ago many spams begun to show up in my
Inbox, so I investigated what's wrong. Until recently most spamd.log
entries looked like this:
info: spamd: got connection over /var/run/spamd.sock
info: s
31 matches
Mail list logo
