Albert E. Whale wrote:
> I am wondering if there is debugging on the launch that I can perform
> without send the multiplexer off as a daemon?
Just strace one of the slaves to see what it's doing. Start with
the standard filter, then keep enabling pieces of your filter until
it starts misbehavin
Mack wrote:
> I thought you'd removed the SPF David?
After reconsideration, I added back in.
Regards,
David.
___
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www
I thought you'd removed the SPF David? , and a check seems to prove this
(from dnstuff.com), but Spamass still seems to see the SPF as valid ?
anyone else seeing this? or perhaps just a caching issue ?
Cheers
Mack
Nov 24 01:26:01 test sendmail[2057]: kAO1Px7p002057:
from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, s
David F. Skoll wrote:
??? What OS is this? Anything special in your filter? Are you using
lots and lots of SpamAssassin rulesets? What happens if you do a system
call trace (strace, truss or ktrace, depending on your OS) on one of the
misbehaving slaves?
Regards,
David.
The OS I have st
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 03:32:49PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> This is on FC5. Quoting:
>
[...]
> dnl # The following causes sendmail to additionally listen to port 465, but
> dnl # starting immediately in TLS mode upon connecting. Port 25 or 587
> followed
> dnl # by STARTTLS is preferred
We made the same change long ago - we normally have over 100 mimedefang
threads running, but average 15 spamd. This is due to so much spam being
stopped by DCC, no user checks, black lists etc, all fired off from
mimedefang. I had many people on this list tell me I was dead wrong, that
there
Philip Prindeville wrote:
dnl # The following causes sendmail to additionally listen to port 465, but
dnl # starting immediately in TLS mode upon connecting. Port 25 or 587 followed
dnl # by STARTTLS is preferred, but roaming clients using Outlook Express can't
dnl # do STARTTLS on ports other t
Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 12:48:34PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>
>>Hey, that's how it comes out-of-the-box from sendmail.org: it's
>>set in /etc/mail/submit.mc on my machine.
>>
>>
>
>What platform is that? I can't find any mention of it on debian
>nor on fre
MIMEDefang is a general-purpose filtering framework, and I don't want
to dictate policy. As Jan-Pieter wrote, the example filter is just
that: An example to get you started. It includes bits and pieces that
many people will find useful. It doesn't include (and isn't intended
to include) all the
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 12:48:34PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Hey, that's how it comes out-of-the-box from sendmail.org: it's
> set in /etc/mail/submit.mc on my machine.
What platform is that? I can't find any mention of it on debian
nor on freebsd. Not even of the (sub-standard) port 465,
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Not sure what kind of headers Kevin (and others?) are adding, but it
might
be worth it ot check if plugins could be used in more cases.
Don't rub salt. I'm still learning how to write a plug-in for SA. I
think getting two or three done will be my New Year's Resolutio
Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 10:31:26PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>
>>Locally (and for users on the road) we use port 465 (SMTPS).
>>
>>Since we trust email on this port, it seems a waste of time to scan
>>it for Spam.
>>
>>I figure this is fairly common. Anyone ha
Over the last few days, I started to find these in my MD log file:
Nov 23 00:03:05 gloop mimedefang[85362]: Error from multiplexor: error:
kAN8346I086134: couldn't open INPUTMSG: No such file or directory
Nov 23 00:03:05 gloop mimedefang-multiplexor[85346]: Slave 10 stderr:
write-open Work/msg-854
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 10:00:01AM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
> > But, given the fact that we just switched to using spamd instead of
> > the builtin Mail::SpamAssassin modules, we don't really need support
> > builtin to mimedefang at the moment either...
>
> Just curious: Why the switch? Do y
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:57:04AM -, Delahunty, Mark wrote:
> I have a server running mimedefang with spamasassin + fsav + sophos (no
> sophie). It marks 65% of our incoming emails as spam.
>
> I've set up another server with the same hardware, operating system and
> mimedefang configuration
Not sure what kind of headers Kevin (and others?) are adding, but it
might
be worth it ot check if plugins could be used in more cases.
Don't rub salt. I'm still learning how to write a plug-in for SA. I think
getting two or three done will be my New Year's Resolution ;-)
Happy Thanksgivin
Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
> But, given the fact that we just switched to using spamd instead of
> the builtin Mail::SpamAssassin modules, we don't really need support
> builtin to mimedefang at the moment either...
Just curious: Why the switch? Do you see better performance?
Regards,
David.
___
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 01:46:17PM +0100, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
> >I'll look at some compromise solution. :-)
>
> Not sure what kind of headers Kevin (and others?) are adding, but it might
> be worth it ot check if plugins could be used in more cases.
We're currently adding an extra header to sp
Thanks Kayne, Jim and David.
I'm using the ram disk now on Linux (Centos 4.4) and just updated the wiki:
http://www.mimedefang.org/kwiki/index.cgi?RamBasedSpoolDirectory
Oliver
David F. Skoll wrote:
Oliver Schulze L. wrote:
[...]
Of course the data in the RAM dir is lost, but will there b
The first thing you have to ask yourself is wether more spam is
effectively passing through or not. 65% or 50% of email marked as spam has
no meaning by itself. You cannot compare these numbers, unless you are
making a test, using a selection of emails you previously knew were spam
and ham.
Obvio
Mark,
>Is it possible that the older server was avoiding spam because it was
>deferring incoming mails and the spammers do not retry deliveries?
Yes, that's the whole point of greylisting - many spammers never retry.
From my logs, I have:
'Rejected', 25075(they connected, were greylisted,
David F. Skoll wrote:
Jonas Eckerman wrote:
add headers to the temprary message created for SpamAssassin,
[...]
I'll look at some compromise solution. :-)
Just wanted to say that with my own SpamAssassin plugins for using p0f data and
checking sender validity and John Rudd's Botnet plu
Hi,
I have a server running mimedefang with spamasassin + fsav + sophos (no
sophie). It marks 65% of our incoming emails as spam.
I've set up another server with the same hardware, operating system and
mimedefang configuration except for 2 changes:
1. It uses clamd instead of sophos
2. It does n
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 10:31:26PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Locally (and for users on the road) we use port 465 (SMTPS).
>
> Since we trust email on this port, it seems a waste of time to scan
> it for Spam.
>
> I figure this is fairly common. Anyone have an issue with the patch:
>
>
(since I've recently mentioned this plugin on the mailscanner and
communigate pro mailing lists, as an effective means of catching spam
from botnets, I'm cross-posting this message (as well as cross-posting
it to the mimedefang mailing list)
I've changed RelayChecker's name to Botnet (since t
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Locally (and for users on the road) we use port 465 (SMTPS).
Since we trust email on this port, it seems a waste of time to scan
it for Spam.
I figure this is fairly common. Anyone have an issue with the patch:
***
*** 263,269
return if message
26 matches
Mail list logo
