Am Dienstag, 8. Mai 2007 20:09:42 schrieb Rosenbaum, Larry M.:
I am getting really poor performance with v3.2.0 compared with v3.1.8.
So do we. I'm quite sorry to bring this subject up again, but bayes expire is
no explanation for us. We are running spamd 3.1x on a cluster of Debian Linux
Bret Miller wrote:
Thanks for the info Bret. What I've come up with is this:
header _FROM_DOMAIN From ~= /example\.com/i
header _SPF_TRUE /\bSPF_FAIL\b/
meta DOMAIN_SPF_TRUE (_FROM_DOMAIN_SPF_TRUE)
score DOMAIN_SPF_TRUE 10.0
Kevin W. Gagel writes:
Thanks for straightening me out on that Vincent.
Folks - for completeness here are some instructions for the WORKAROUND.
Locate your Message.pm module and edit the section in the begining as
indicated below.
I have been running this now for a couple of hours with
SARE guys -- any chance those rules could be simply zeroed out (ie.
replaced with meta NAMEOFRULE (0) or similar) in the short term, until
they're fixed properly?
I'm seeing increasing amounts of problems caused by this bug around the
web -- specifically, log partitions filling up due to the
Yesy you're rigth . Most large domains have separate MTA's
for sending and receiving mail. i will try Whitelist_from_rcvd as soon as
possible
Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gokhan ALKAN wrote:
I have received some mails that from domain and return-path domain
is different and
Yet Another Ninja writes:
On 5/8/2007 7:18 PM, Kelsey Cummings wrote:
Is anyone else seeing an increased FP rate after upgrading to 3.2?
I've got a number of reports coming in like:
AXB_XMID_1212, which defaults to 3.899 and was
causing a fair amount of legitimate mail to one of
Hello
I need to check only ip for DNSBL lists and get score.
When I do
# spamassassin test.EML
I get
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on hs1.host.net.ua
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=11.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2,
Hello!
Perhaps i overlooked some test i could use for giving extra scores to
mail sent from addresses like this:
X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e.g. i would think it useful if i could add a
check for:
address contains 4 or more digits,
give it some extra score 1.x
Perhaps someone is
I'm hoping I can get to this a in a day or two Justin. I started on it a
few days ago and had the editor I was using decide that it didn't like
high-byte characters and crash, and I haven't had time to get back and do it
again. SOmething about a 16-hour a day day job and two side jobs that
X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e.g. i would think it useful if i could add a
check for:
address contains 4 or more digits,
give it some extra score 1.x
I'd sure want to masscheck the rule before using it, but you could proibably
do something like
header X-Envelope-From:addr =~ /[EMAIL
Hi all -- I'm off shortly on 2 weeks vacation until May 24. see you
then, and good luck with that 3.2.x bug list ;)
--j.
Hi All,
I saw the mention earlier about spamd logs and thought I'd check mine.
In 12 hours it has achieved the impressive, if very worrying size of
1.8 Gb. A check back over the last few days show similarly sized logs.
My system lint's clean. and sa-compile ran fine after I removed the
rules
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:01:53 +0100, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I saw the mention earlier about spamd logs and thought I'd check mine.
In 12 hours it has achieved the impressive, if very worrying size of
1.8 Gb. A check back over the last few days show similarly sized logs.
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:28:31 +0100, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:01:53 +0100, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I saw the mention earlier about spamd logs and thought I'd check mine.
In 12 hours it has achieved the impressive, if very worrying
Took 10 mins on my 2.8gh 512mb ram, with a bunch of sares rules.
You using .12.0 of re2c?
Yes.
I think most of the time is spent in the rule extraction steps and the
gcc compiles, and not in the re2c steps. (gcc is v3.4.6)
Yes, you are right, after use warnings;. I ran SA3.2 on my site
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:39:51 +0100, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:28:31 +0100, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:01:53 +0100, Nigel Frankcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I saw the mention earlier about spamd logs and thought I'd
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
Took 10 mins on my 2.8gh 512mb ram, with a bunch of sares rules.
You using .12.0 of re2c?
Yes.
I think most of the time is spent in the rule extraction steps and the
gcc compiles, and not in the re2c steps. (gcc is v3.4.6)
Yes, you are
Well, here, P4 HT 3.06 GHz, 2 GB RAM (just added 1GB, wanted to test
performance) Debian Sarge pretty standard, Perl 5.8.8 from Backports,
SA 3.2.0 from source, re2c 0.12.0 from source, a bunch of SARE and
openprotect rules, several plugins, sa-compile delivered this:
# time sa-compile
real
HI,
is there a way to extract statistics as with sa-stats from
spamassassin, even if spamd is not used (so no logs spamd format),
and it is used spamassassin from amavis-new instead.
anybody have a similar need?
Or .. logs in sql and php...
thanks in advance
--
View this message in context:
I was asked how the update was working on the Mac. Since I added
use bytes; I haven't received any timeouts. Below are sample run
times for the last few messages.
The system is a Mac mini, PPC, 1.42GHz G4, 512MB DRAM.
Mac OS X Server, 10.4.9, latest updates.
ClamAV manually updated to 0.90.2
Hello!
Perhaps i overlooked some test i could use for giving extra scores to
mail sent from addresses like this:
X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e.g. i would think it useful if i could add a
check for:
address contains 4 or more digits,
give it some extra score 1.x
Perhaps
From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Poor performance with v3.2.0
It would be interesting on some system experiencing this slowdown to
put
'use bytes' back into SA and see what happens with the performance.
This
wouldn't be any sort of a solution, but it would be an
Rosenbaum, Larry M. writes:
From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Poor performance with v3.2.0
It would be interesting on some system experiencing this slowdown to
put
'use bytes' back into SA and see what happens with the performance.
This
wouldn't be any sort
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Did you have a massive volume of Malformed UTF-8 warning messages in
the
syslog output?
No, I upgraded Perl to v5.8.8, which got rid of the warning messages but
there was still a performance problem. Adding use bytes seems to have
fixed the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Justin Mason wrote:
Rosenbaum, Larry M. writes:
From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Poor performance with v3.2.0
It would be interesting on some system experiencing this slowdown to
put
'use bytes' back into SA and see
On 9 May 2007 at 22:34, Matt Kettler wrote:
Date sent: Wed, 09 May 2007 22:34:48 -0400
From: Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: 3 spamc questions, version 3.2
To: .rp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copies to:
-Original Message-
From: Doc Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If he is getting the UTF-8 error, this would indeed be odd, since he
is
using perl-5.8.8 which supposedly handles those regexps which causes
the
error.
What SARE rules are you running Larry?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Doc Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If he is getting the UTF-8 error, this would indeed be odd, since he
is
using perl-5.8.8 which supposedly handles those regexps which causes
What's this use bytes thing and where do you add it and what does it do?
At 12:27 PM 5/10/2007, Marc Perkel wrote:
What's this use bytes thing and where do you add it and what does it do?
It's a temporary workaround for the UTF-8 problem.
You add it after the use warnings; in the file message.pm.
Mine is located in:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:58:17PM -0700, Jerry Durand wrote:
If you have Perl 5.8.8, you don't need to do this.
When the SARE rules are updated, you can remove it.
Alternately you can stop using the rules that have the problem, which would be
easier.
--
Randomly Selected Tagline:
Hard where?
Justin Mason wrote:
I have a theory that this would indeed cause major slowdowns, since
every warning message has to be transmitted via UDP to the syslogd
daemon, who then writes it synchronously to disk. That is a pretty
slow operation, and causes I/O.
Just a guess: if strings being
I'm running SA 3.2.0 and am trying to write a custom spamassassin rule
to deal with some recent spam I've been seeing that has 10 additional
spaces in the To: header. For example:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, I would like to write a rule that looks for at least two
contiguous spaces
Hi, try Amavis Logwatch, by Mike Capella. It's working great here, and
you could run it from logwatch, or standalone:
http://www.mikecappella.com/logwatch
It's pretty straightforward to install and run, and it gives you lots
of info about Amavis performance, as well as antivirus antispam
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:27:38PM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
What's this use bytes thing and where do you add it and what does it do?
#! /usr/bin/perl
use Google;
--
Matthew Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
UNIX and e-mail Systems Administrator, Network Services,
I.T. Services, University of
Bryan K. Walton wrote:
I'm running SA 3.2.0 and am trying to write a custom spamassassin rule
to deal with some recent spam I've been seeing that has 10 additional
spaces in the To: header. For example:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, I would like to write a rule that looks for at least
.rp wrote:
On 9 May 2007 at 22:34, Matt Kettler wrote:
Date sent: Wed, 09 May 2007 22:34:48 -0400
From: Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: 3 spamc questions, version 3.2
To: .rp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copies to:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 06:36:05PM -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
You'll have to use To:raw =~ to prevent the extra whitespace from
being removed and even that might not work. I think we fixed it so that
it does though.
Thank you every body that replied. To:raw =~ was the fix that
Duane Hill wrote:
2) In the Makefile, it states sa-compile doesn't work on FreeBSD and
Solaris if you elect to use it and try doing a 'make' from the port
directory.
Can anyone tell me what is supposed to be broken on Solaris concerning
sa-compile?
I built SA 3.2.0 using the package from
#! /usr/bin/perl
use Google;
Matthew,
Sometimes it is hard for them to do if they are...
$ cd /pub
$ more beer
Then they would tend to
#! /usr/bin/perl
use Bathroom;
- rh
--
Abba Communications
Spokane, WA
www.abbacomm.net
Interesting indeed. I added use bytes and performance is much
improved. It's approximately back to where it was with v3.1.8. So what
does this all mean?
Well first, do you have the SARE rules installed that are throwing errors?
If so, this might only mean that the errors have vanished.
If
SpamAssassin is configured to add the header when it's spam and not
when it's ham.
you can change that
add this
add_header all Flag _YESNOCAPS_
and it will keep the header in both cases.
On May 4, 2007, at 4:51 AM, BrianSebby wrote:
We recently put an Ironport anti-spam appliance in
We recently put an Ironport anti-spam appliance in front of our
SpamAssassin
installation for evaluation, and I have noticed a problem. I
The Ironport machine is SA in disguise. So you effectively have two copies
of SA in series. You porbably understand this, but I'm just mentioning it
Hi
A small problems ;=)
Before, my spamassassin server are in front ends .. all messages
going directly to my spamassassin server and the result are very good.
Now, it's a smtp relay server that receive the email and after sent to
my spamassassin (the relay don't have filter or other,, it's
44 matches
Mail list logo
