Re: SA 3.0.2? Why no mail from announce@spamassassin.apache.org

[Alan Baxter]

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:52:31 +0100, "Maurice Lucas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>By just checking the SA website I found out that there is a 3.0.2 release 
>from 2004-12-16.
>
>Why isn't there an announce from the announce list?

The last announcement that I received from the SpamAssassin-announce
list was the one for version 2.64 sent 4 August 2004.  Maybe it's not
being used anymore.  Has anyone received more recent announcements?

Alan

Re: AWL confusion

[Rob MacGregor]

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:02:06 -0500, Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So why on earth is a 17-score given to an address in an auto white-list?
> Shouldn't an address get a negative score (or, at least, a neutral zero)
> if it's in a WL?

You may want to read up on the AWL in the WIKI - it explains exactly
why you're seeing the scores you are.

-- 
 Please keep list traffic on the list.
Rob MacGregor
  Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he 
doesn't become a monster.  Friedrich Nietzsche

AWL confusion

[Rich]

Me new email host is using SA 3.0.1 and I have been watching what gets 
caught and what doesn't so I can do some user_prefs tuning if necessary. 
But I don't understand what is going on with this AWL stuff. The host 
service has it turned on and I get a non-spam message with this score 
report in it:

X-Spam-Report:
* -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
*  [score: 0.]
*   17 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
So why on earth is a 17-score given to an address in an auto white-list? 
Shouldn't an address get a negative score (or, at least, a neutral zero) 
if it's in a WL?

Rich

RE: trying to install 3.0.2 via CPAN

[martin smith]

 |-Original Message-
|From: alan premselaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: 19 December 2004 03:16
|To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
|Subject: trying to install 3.0.2 via CPAN
|
|for some reason i'm getting SPF failures during the 'make test' phase:
|
|t/spf...Not found: helo_pass =  SPF_HELO_PASS
|# Failed test 1 in t/SATest.pm at line 530
| Not found: pass =  SPF_PASS
|# Failed test 2 in t/SATest.pm at line 530 fail #2 
|t/spf...FAILED tests 1-2
|
| Failed 2/2 tests, 0.00% okay
|t/sql_based_whitelist...ok
|
|
|SpamAssassin 3.0.1 is currently running on the systems (it's happening 
|on 2 RedHat systems, one 7.2 and one 9.0).
|
|Mail::SPF::Query is installed and the latest version.
|
|the 7.2 system is running perl 5.6.1 and the 9.0 system is running perl 
|5.8.0
|
|I didn't find any information on bugzilla regarding this.
|
|
|any ideas?
|
|thanks,
|
|alan
|

I did a force install because I got exactly the same tests fail, and 3.0.2
and SPF are working just fine.
Personaly I don't think SPF failing should stop the install, its not a
critical part of spamassassin.

Martin

Re: SpamAssassin doesn't parse any email

[Oleksandr Samoylyk]

> Yeah, thanks all. I found my problem. That was a syntax errors in my local.cf.
> I used the old one (for 2.x).


I need some help again.

My local.cf:

required_hits 5.0
rewrite_header subject [*SPAM*] 
report_safe 1 
use_bayes 1 
bayes_auto_learn 1 
skip_rbl_checks 0 
ok_languages all 
ok_locales all

Here's the debug configuration of my SA.

debug: SpamAssassin version 3.0.2
debug: Score set 0 chosen.
debug: running in taint mode? yes
debug: Running in taint mode, removing unsafe env vars, and resetting PATH
debug: PATH included '/usr/kerberos/sbin', keeping.
debug: PATH included '/usr/kerberos/bin', keeping.
debug: PATH included '/usr/local/bin', keeping.
debug: PATH included '/bin', keeping.
debug: PATH included '/usr/bin', keeping.
debug: PATH included '/usr/X11R6/bin', keeping.
debug: PATH included '/home/bigblue/bin', which doesn't exist, dropping.
debug: Final PATH set to: 
/usr/kerberos/sbin:/usr/kerberos/bin:/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin
debug: diag: module installed: DBI, version 1.37
debug: diag: module installed: DB_File, version 1.808
debug: diag: module installed: Digest::SHA1, version 2.10
debug: diag: module installed: IO::Socket::UNIX, version 1.21
debug: diag: module installed: MIME::Base64, version 2.21
debug: diag: module installed: Net::DNS, version 0.48
debug: diag: module not installed: Net::LDAP ('require' failed)
debug: diag: module not installed: Razor2::Client::Agent ('require' failed)
debug: diag: module installed: Storable, version 2.09
debug: diag: module installed: URI, version 1.21
debug: ignore: using a test message to lint rules
debug: using "/etc/mail/spamassassin/init.pre" for site rules init.pre
debug: config: read file /etc/mail/spamassassin/init.pre
debug: using "/usr/share/spamassassin" for default rules dir
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/10_misc.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_anti_ratware.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_body_tests.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_compensate.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_dnsbl_tests.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_drugs.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_fake_helo_tests.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_head_tests.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_html_tests.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_meta_tests.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_phrases.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_porn.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_ratware.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/20_uri_tests.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/23_bayes.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/25_body_tests_es.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/25_hashcash.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/25_spf.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/25_uribl.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/30_text_de.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/30_text_fr.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/30_text_nl.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/30_text_pl.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/50_scores.cf
debug: config: read file /usr/share/spamassassin/60_whitelist.cf
debug: using "/etc/mail/spamassassin" for site rules dir
debug: config: read file /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
debug: using "/root/.spamassassin" for user state dir
debug: using "/root/.spamassassin/user_prefs" for user prefs file
debug: config: read file /root/.spamassassin/user_prefs
debug: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL from @INC
debug: plugin: registered Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x9664bac)
debug: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Hashcash from @INC
debug: plugin: registered Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Hashcash=HASH(0x9e06f58)
debug: plugin: loading Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF from @INC
debug: plugin: registered Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::SPF=HASH(0x9dd5d04)
debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x9664bac) implements 
'parse_config'
debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Hashcash=HASH(0x9e06f58) implements 
'parse_config'
debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x9664bac) inhibited 
further callbacks
debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x9664bac) inhibited 
further callbacks
debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x9664bac) inhibited 
further callbacks
debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x9664bac) inhibited 
further callbacks
debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x9664bac) inhibited 
further callbacks
debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x9664bac) inhibited 
further callbacks
debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x9664bac) inhibited 
further callbacks

Re: more spam gets through since SA 3.x -- Beg to differ

[Richard Ozer]

I read that same install file. But, it just wasn't so...
RO
Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hi,
3.0 requires a higher version of Perl than 2.63 did.  I don't recall the
exact version required, but I know it is somewhere in the release or 
upgrade
notes.  Vague memory says that maybe 5.6.2 was the magic number; but that
could be wrong.

I just checked it - 5.61 is sufficient, according to the INSTALL file.
Florian

Re: "uninitialized value" and other errors with SA 3.0.2

[Theo Van Dinter]

On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 10:48:07AM -0500, Brian Kendig wrote:
> And when I call it from my Exim 4.43 mail server through SA-Exim, these 
> errors appear in my mail.log:
> 
> spamd[16237]: connection from localhost [127.0.0.1] at port 54762
> spamd[16245]: processing message 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for exim:-2.
> spamd[16245]: Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string 
> at ///Library/Perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/NoMailAudit.pm line 184.
> spamd[16245]: Use of uninitialized value in pattern match (m//) at 
> ///Library/Perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line 875.
> spamd[16245]: clean message (0.0/5.0) for exim:-2 in 4.4 seconds, 1058 
> bytes.

http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CantLocateNoMailAudit

In short, you have (and are trying to use) old modules.  NoMailAudit
doesn't exist in v3.

-- 
Randomly Generated Tagline:
My superiority complex is better than yours!


pgpS8E1hWVqOt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: SA 3.0.2? Why no mail from announce@spamassassin.apache.org

[Michael Parker]

On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Maurice Lucas wrote:
> 
> Why isn't there an announce from the announce list?
> 

Probably stuck in a moderation queue somewhere.  I'm pretty sure I
sent one there.

Michael


pgppz54puBsJ6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

"uninitialized value" and other errors with SA 3.0.2

[Brian Kendig]

I'm getting errors when I try to use SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (and the same 
errors with 3.0.1), on Mac OS X 10.3.7.  Specifically, when I call it 
from a command line with no arguments (same as if I give it "-t < 
sample-spam.txt"):

$ spamassassin
Global symbol "$re_strict" requires explicit package name at 
///Library/Perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line 1224.
Global symbol "$re_loose" requires explicit package name at 
///Library/Perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line 1224.
Global symbol "$re_strict" requires explicit package name at 
///Library/Perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line 1229.
Global symbol "$re_loose" requires explicit package name at 
///Library/Perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line 1229.
BEGIN not safe after errors--compilation aborted at 
///Library/Perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line 2608.
Compilation failed in require at 
///Library/Perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm line 62.
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at 
///Library/Perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm line 62.
Compilation failed in require at /usr/bin/spamassassin line 69.

And when I call it from my Exim 4.43 mail server through SA-Exim, these 
errors appear in my mail.log:

spamd[16237]: connection from localhost [127.0.0.1] at port 54762
spamd[16245]: processing message 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for exim:-2.
spamd[16245]: Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string 
at ///Library/Perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/NoMailAudit.pm line 184.
spamd[16245]: Use of uninitialized value in pattern match (m//) at 
///Library/Perl/5.8.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line 875.
spamd[16245]: clean message (0.0/5.0) for exim:-2 in 4.4 seconds, 1058 
bytes.

SpamAssassin 2.64 works just fine.
Is this a bug in SpamAssassin 3.0.2, or am I doing something wrong on 
my end?

SA 3.0.2? Why no mail from announce@spamassassin.apache.org

[Maurice Lucas]

By just checking the SA website I found out that there is a 3.0.2 release 
from 2004-12-16.

Why isn't there an announce from the announce list?
Archives on GMANE and MARC are both out of date.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/MailingLists
with kind regards,
Met vriendelijke groet,
Maurice Lucas
TAOS-IT
Statistics of the TAOS-IT emailscanner for the month November 2004
Positive Predictive Value (PPV) :  100.00%
Negative Predictive Value (NPV) : 99.88%
Sensitivity : 99.58%
Specificity : 100.00%
Efficiency : 99.91%
For more information (Dutch) : http://www.taos-it.nl/emailserver.htm 

Re: more spam gets through since SA 3.x -- Beg to differ

[Florian Effenberger]

Hi,
3.0 requires a higher version of Perl than 2.63 did.  I don't recall the
exact version required, but I know it is somewhere in the release or upgrade
notes.  Vague memory says that maybe 5.6.2 was the magic number; but that
could be wrong.
I just checked it - 5.61 is sufficient, according to the INSTALL file.
Florian

Re: more spam gets through since SA 3.x -- Beg to differ

[Florian Effenberger]

Hi Richard,
Perl 5.6.1 simply didn't work properly.  It caused Amavis & SA to strip 
emails of their subject lines, failed to scan properly, had real 
problems with spawning multiple processes, and reported errors in 
spamassassin --lint --debug, many of which I was eventually able to 
resolve; but the worst problems remained, including an inability to run 
DCC.
hm... that's interesting. I just checked the top-level INSTALL file and 
it says that Perl 5.6.1 is just fine. When I manually invoke spamc, it 
scans just fine. amavisd-new leaves out some tests. Lint does not tell 
me about any errors.

Florian

Re: more spam gets through since SA 3.x -- Beg to differ

[Loren Wilton]

> > Florian, what version of Perl are you using?  Post your amavis.conf
file.
>
> 5.6.1, the Debian standard one.

3.0 requires a higher version of Perl than 2.63 did.  I don't recall the
exact version required, but I know it is somewhere in the release or upgrade
notes.  Vague memory says that maybe 5.6.2 was the magic number; but that
could be wrong.


> > I use the following rulesets in addition to those distributed with
> > Spamassassin:
>
> How can I enable them, where do I get them?

I think most of the rulesets he has are obtainable from either rulesemporium
or exit0 web sites.  SARE has a pile of rules that you can download for
various things, and they can help a lot, especially if you aren't running
net tests ot bayes.  www.rulesemporium.com/rules.  Just download the various
*.cf files and drop them in to the same directory with your local.cf file.

Loren

Re: trying to install 3.0.2 via CPAN

[Loren Wilton]

I think my impression of the note I saw was that this was considered
annoying and that someone ought to look at it.  (That impression may be
wrong, as I said, I really wasn't paying a lot of attention.)

So this almost certainly is still a problem in 3.02, since that was just
released in the last couple of days.
I would expect it will probably be fixed in the .03/.04 timeframe, just at a
guess.

Loren

Re: trying to install 3.0.2 via CPAN

[jdow]

From: "alan premselaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Loren Wilton wrote:
> >>for some reason i'm getting SPF failures during the 'make test' phase:
> >>
> >>t/spf...Not found: helo_pass =  SPF_HELO_PASS
> >># Failed test 1 in t/SATest.pm at line 530
> >> Not found: pass =  SPF_PASS
> >># Failed test 2 in t/SATest.pm at line 530 fail #2
> >>t/spf...FAILED tests 1-2
> >>
> >> Failed 2/2 tests, 0.00% okay
> >>t/sql_based_whitelist...ok
> >>
> >>I didn't find any information on bugzilla regarding this.
> >
> >
> > There were some comments on the dev list just last night or earlier
today
> > about this problem, or one very much like it.  I didn't quite follow
where
> > the comments led, since I'm not very interested in SPF myself.  But I
think
> > this is something the devs have seen.
> >
> > Loren
> >
> Loren,
>
>   thanks for the response.  So, it's probably best if i just wait to
> upgrade to 3.0.2 until something about this is resolved?  I didn't see
> anything on bugzilla about it.
>
> obviously I could force install, but i really prefer not doing that if I
> can avoid it.

One of the optional tests failed here with both 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 due to a
missing include file when it tried to run cc to compile some test. I think
it was the either a DB or DNS test. I simply reran with the test disabled.
I should have noted it and run the bug through the dev list. It's a Mandrake
10.1 install with the "cooker" 3.0.1 Spamassassin against which I tried
running CPAN

{^_^}

Re: more spam gets through since SA 3.x -- Beg to differ

[Florian Effenberger]

Hi Richard,
First and foremost, I found it necessary to upgrade to perl 5.8.x. The
earlier version (5.6.1 -- installed with Debian) was insufficient for
running Spamassassin under Amavis under my configuration.
what do you mean by insufficient? Did you receive error messages or what 
type of problems did occur?

Florian, what version of Perl are you using?  Post your amavis.conf file.
5.6.1, the Debian standard one.
I use the following rulesets in addition to those distributed with
Spamassassin:
How can I enable them, where do I get them?
Below is my local.cf and my amavisd.conf. (If anyone would like these as 
attachments, contact me privately.)
Thanks a lot, I will compare them to mine!
Florian

Re: "--max-conn-per-child=5" allows spam leakage

[Florian Effenberger]

Hi,
I ran with this configured into my spamd startup incantation. I noticed
about 6 out of 200 spams would "leak" right through without any Spam
markings whatsoever. If I subsequently fed them to "spamassassin -t could you please check whether it only has "low" scores or it did 
receive absolutely no score?

Do you run using amavisd-new?
Thanks
Florian

Re: trying to install 3.0.2 via CPAN

[alan premselaar]

Loren Wilton wrote:
for some reason i'm getting SPF failures during the 'make test' phase:
t/spf...Not found: helo_pass =  SPF_HELO_PASS
# Failed test 1 in t/SATest.pm at line 530
Not found: pass =  SPF_PASS
# Failed test 2 in t/SATest.pm at line 530 fail #2
t/spf...FAILED tests 1-2
Failed 2/2 tests, 0.00% okay
t/sql_based_whitelist...ok
I didn't find any information on bugzilla regarding this.

There were some comments on the dev list just last night or earlier today
about this problem, or one very much like it.  I didn't quite follow where
the comments led, since I'm not very interested in SPF myself.  But I think
this is something the devs have seen.
Loren
Loren,
 thanks for the response.  So, it's probably best if i just wait to 
upgrade to 3.0.2 until something about this is resolved?  I didn't see 
anything on bugzilla about it.

obviously I could force install, but i really prefer not doing that if I 
can avoid it.

alan

upgrading to 3.0 from 2.64 note

[Jeremy Kister]

I recently upgraded my spamassassin 2.64 to 3.02 on three machines (two
Solaris, one FreeBSD).

The Solaris installs went according to the upgrade notes/wiki, but the
FreeBSD machine was a bit different, in that It required the "Storable"
module from CPAN.

once I installed it, it went smooth.
just FYI.

--

Jeremy Kister
http://jeremy.kister.net/

Re: trying to install 3.0.2 via CPAN

[Loren Wilton]

> for some reason i'm getting SPF failures during the 'make test' phase:
>
> t/spf...Not found: helo_pass =  SPF_HELO_PASS
> # Failed test 1 in t/SATest.pm at line 530
>  Not found: pass =  SPF_PASS
> # Failed test 2 in t/SATest.pm at line 530 fail #2
> t/spf...FAILED tests 1-2
>
>  Failed 2/2 tests, 0.00% okay
> t/sql_based_whitelist...ok
>
> I didn't find any information on bugzilla regarding this.

There were some comments on the dev list just last night or earlier today
about this problem, or one very much like it.  I didn't quite follow where
the comments led, since I'm not very interested in SPF myself.  But I think
this is something the devs have seen.

Loren

Re: ISP Awarded $1 Billion in Anti-Spam Suit

[jdow]

From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


>
>

>
> > Sat Dec 18, 3:25 PM ET
> >
> >Technology - AP
> >
> > DAVENPORT, Iowa - A federal judge has awarded an Internet
> > service provider more than $1 billion in what is believed to be
> > the largest judgment ever against spammers.
> [...]
> >  U.S. District Judge Charles R. Wolle filed default judgments
> > Friday against three of the defendants under the Federal
> > Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Iowa
> > Ongoing Criminal Conduct Act.
> >
> > AMP Dollar Savings Inc. of Mesa, Ariz., was ordered to pay $720
> > million and Cash Link Systems Inc. of Miami, Fla., was ordered
> > to pay $360 million. The third company, Florida-based TEI
> > Marketing Group, was ordered to pay $140,000.
> [...]
> > an Iowa law [...] allows plaintiffs to claim damages of $10 per
> > spam message. The judgments were then tripled under RICO.
>
> Probably the ISP is unlikely to collect much, but this is
> certainly a step in the right direction.
>
> Jeff C.

On another paw, Jeff, I hear that spammers are plying the US Congress
with large sums of money and expensive lobbyists to get a rather
watered down Federal law against spam based on the commerce clause.
The law would usurp all state laws. Make sure your Congresscritters
are well aware that their jobs may depend on REALLY stiff anti-spam
laws. Other people can do a "MoveOn.org" or "Vietnam Vets" tear down
a candidate process on the web. Heck, it might be fun to be proactive
and tear down a few Congresscritters who are already known to be soft
on spam.

{^_^}

trying to install 3.0.2 via CPAN

[alan premselaar]

for some reason i'm getting SPF failures during the 'make test' phase:
t/spf...Not found: helo_pass =  SPF_HELO_PASS
# Failed test 1 in t/SATest.pm at line 530
Not found: pass =  SPF_PASS
# Failed test 2 in t/SATest.pm at line 530 fail #2
t/spf...FAILED tests 1-2 

Failed 2/2 tests, 0.00% okay
t/sql_based_whitelist...ok
SpamAssassin 3.0.1 is currently running on the systems (it's happening 
on 2 RedHat systems, one 7.2 and one 9.0).

Mail::SPF::Query is installed and the latest version.
the 7.2 system is running perl 5.6.1 and the 9.0 system is running perl 
5.8.0

I didn't find any information on bugzilla regarding this.
any ideas?
thanks,
alan

OT: ISP Awarded $1 Billion in Anti-Spam Suit

[Jeff Chan]

  


> Sat Dec 18, 3:25 PM ET
>   
>Technology - AP
> 
> DAVENPORT, Iowa - A federal judge has awarded an Internet
> service provider more than $1 billion in what is believed to be
> the largest judgment ever against spammers.
[...]
>  U.S. District Judge Charles R. Wolle filed default judgments
> Friday against three of the defendants under the Federal
> Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Iowa
> Ongoing Criminal Conduct Act. 
> 
> AMP Dollar Savings Inc. of Mesa, Ariz., was ordered to pay $720
> million and Cash Link Systems Inc. of Miami, Fla., was ordered
> to pay $360 million. The third company, Florida-based TEI
> Marketing Group, was ordered to pay $140,000. 
[...]
> an Iowa law [...] allows plaintiffs to claim damages of $10 per
> spam message. The judgments were then tripled under RICO. 

Probably the ISP is unlikely to collect much, but this is
certainly a step in the right direction.

Jeff C.
-- 
Jeff Chan
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.surbl.org/

"--max-conn-per-child=5" allows spam leakage

[jdow]

I ran with this configured into my spamd startup incantation. I noticed
about 6 out of 200 spams would "leak" right through without any Spam
markings whatsoever. If I subsequently fed them to "spamassassin -t