header L_DOUBLE_SUBJECT ALL =~ /^Subject:.*^Subject:/smi
header L_DOUBLE_FROMALL =~ /^From:.*^From:/smi
Doing some more research on my suggestion
and evaluating results for the last three days, here is a proposal for new
rule:
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4927
A couple of days after an upgrade from 3.0.4 to 3.1.2, I'm noticing that
it seems alot slower. I turned off most network tests, including DCC,
Pyzor and Razor and it still looks like there's an issue.
I raised max children from 15 to 25, yet it still seems to be spending
most of it's time at
Dan wrote:
Thought you might enjoy this unintended peak at the construction of
randomized header variables:
(SMTPD32-8.15) id ACE84FB700A2; Wed, 31 May 2006 06:16:08 -0400
Received: from [221.7.214.83]
by
id 1FlNkA-00029J-ST
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 31 May 2006 03:16:05
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A couple of days after an upgrade from 3.0.4 to 3.1.2, I'm noticing
that it seems alot slower. I turned off most network tests,
including DCC, Pyzor and Razor and it still looks like there's an
issue.
I raised max children from 15 to 25, yet it still seems to be
On 5/31/06, Benny Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but should this not be more in postfix header check ?
does someone know if there is a set of rfc checks for postfix exists anywhere ?
Not possible with postfix header_checks. Header_checks cannot test
for the absence of a header, nor
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Bowie Bailey wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A couple of days after an upgrade from 3.0.4 to 3.1.2, I'm noticing
that it seems alot slower. I turned off most network tests,
including DCC, Pyzor and Razor and it still looks like there's an
issue.
I raised max
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Bowie Bailey wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A couple of days after an upgrade from 3.0.4 to 3.1.2, I'm
noticing that it seems alot slower. I turned off most network
tests, including DCC, Pyzor and Razor and it still looks like
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A couple of days after an upgrade from 3.0.4 to 3.1.2, I'm noticing
that it seems alot slower. I turned off most network tests,
including DCC, Pyzor and Razor and it still looks like there's an
issue.
Is it possible that you're locking on a Bayes write? Try
Hi there.
I tried upgrading from 3.1.1 to 3.1.2 today, but spamassassin --
lint turned up the following errors:
[766] warn: config: warning: score set for non-existent rule BAYES_80
[766] warn: config: warning: score set for non-existent rule BAYES_95
[766] warn: config: warning: score set for
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:12:03AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May 31 07:53:52 mail spamd[59117]: Use of uninitialized value in
subtraction (-) at
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Locker/UnixNFSSafe.pm
line 102, GEN108 line 46.
Hrm. That's not good. Seems
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 09:46:52AM -0600, Nels Lindquist wrote:
I tried upgrading from 3.1.1 to 3.1.2 today, but spamassassin --
lint turned up the following errors:
[766] warn: config: warning: score set for non-existent rule BAYES_80
[...]
3.1.1). Is there some larger issue here?
On Wed, 31 May 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A couple of days after an upgrade from 3.0.4 to 3.1.2, I'm noticing
that it seems alot slower. I turned off most network tests,
including DCC, Pyzor and Razor and it still looks like there's an
issue.
Is it possible
On 31 May 2006 at 11:50, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 09:46:52AM -0600, Nels Lindquist wrote:
I tried upgrading from 3.1.1 to 3.1.2 today, but spamassassin --
lint turned up the following errors:
[766] warn: config: warning: score set for non-existent rule BAYES_80
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:12:03AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May 31 07:53:52 mail spamd[59117]: Use of uninitialized value in
subtraction (-) at
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Locker/UnixNFSSafe.pm
line 102,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ugh...I have seen some locking errors while I wasn't before. WOuld
simply turning off auto-learning accomplish the same thing?
Possibly.
If it needs to be turned off altogether, will just commenting out
bayes_path in local.cf do it? I don't see any other reference
On Wed, 31 May 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:12:03AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May 31 07:53:52 mail spamd[59117]: Use of uninitialized value in
subtraction (-) at
Can you get output of
strace -f -o trace
on the affected processes? (easy way: just stop spamd, then strace the
spamd startup script.)
--j.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 31 May 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2006
Hi,
I've run in 3.1.2 on a test server before letting it loose live.
When running --lint -D I get the following output:
info: config: can not determine userstate dir
warn: config: could not find userprefs file
My SPAMDOPTIONS are set as:
SPAMDOPTIONS=-d -c -m5 -H -i0.0.0.0 -A192.168.2. -q -x
Hi All,
Problem resolved.
The creation of a dir /root/.spamassassin with a file user_prefs in it
has resolved the issue.
After adding the above it now lint's clean.
I'm not sure why it didn't get created at install - but at least now
it's fixed.
Many thanks to James Rallo for his correct
On the plus side the manual fix is pretty simple and now it's in the
lists it should make it a little easier for others to find a solution.
I wouldn't beat yourself up too much, if it was perfect every time
where would the entertainment value be? ;-)
KR
Nigel
On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:16:56
for those that didn't see it, http://slashdot.org/ read Google,
Submission AdSense and NoFollow Letdown. figured I'd toot his horn for
him. :)
was taint.org slashdotted for a bit? I couldn't seem to access it when
the article first appeared. Seems to come up fine now.
I have included the mailing in it's entirety below. Is this an old trick
I just have not seen or is this something new using mailman to send
spam. I assure you I neither signed up nor confirmed a submission for
this mailing list. Is this just a poorly configured mailman install?
Tom
I was rereading the sections on trusted_networks and internal_networks
in Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf, but something wasn't clear to me.
It talks about MXes and relays, but... not about client workstations
that might
originate email locally and submit it via port 25 or port 465 (and not the
typical
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I was rereading the sections on trusted_networks and internal_networks
in Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf, but something wasn't clear to me.
It talks about MXes and relays, but... not about client workstations
that might
originate email locally and submit it via port 25
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Thomas Bolioli wrote:
I have included the mailing in it's entirety below. Is this an old trick
I just have not seen or is this something new using mailman to send
spam. I assure you I neither signed up nor confirmed a submission for
this mailing list. Is this just a
25 matches
Mail list logo
