All,
I have a very unusual situation (I think):
I am running the exact same system (it was cloned) on several
single-core and dual-core systems. The only difference is in the
hardware, i.e. some systems are dual-core.
I am running spamd with maxchild=25 (the actual number in use is
On 05.11.08 12:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Swinog has no listing for this url - so why does spamassassin mark this mail?
Don't post message body to the list. put whole message (including all
headers) somewhere so we can look at it.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
On 05.11.08 12:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Swinog has no listing for this url - so why does spamassassin mark this
mail?
Don't post message body to the list. put whole message (including all
headers) somewhere so we can look at it.
--
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 5 12:35:55 2008
On 05.11.08 12:09, Per Jessen wrote:
I have a very unusual situation (I think):
I am running the exact same system (it was cloned) on several
single-core and dual-core systems. The only difference is in the
hardware, i.e. some systems are dual-core.
cloned? Do you have the same OS kernel
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 05.11.08 12:09, Per Jessen wrote:
I have a very unusual situation (I think):
I am running the exact same system (it was cloned) on several
single-core and dual-core systems. The only difference is in the
hardware, i.e. some systems are dual-core.
Hello,
Swinog has no listing for this url - so why does spamassassin mark this mail?
thx
Sebastian
**
Hallo!
Du erhältst diese E-Mail, weil du über Antworten zum Thema Plugin wie
wpseo ? auf
Serendipity [s9y] Forums benachrichtigt werden wolltest. Dieses Thema
Per Jessen wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 05.11.08 12:09, Per Jessen wrote:
I have a very unusual situation (I think):
I am running the exact same system (it was cloned) on several
single-core and dual-core systems. The only difference is in the
hardware, i.e. some systems are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Swinog has no listing for this url - so why does spamassassin mark this mail?
because it is listed on swinog:
$ host s9y.org.uribl.swinog.ch
s9y.org.uribl.swinog.ch has address 127.0.0.2
As others said, swinog isn't part of the default SA rules. you added
URIBL_SC_SWINOG
There is no end to what is messed up with that message, mismatched hostnames
and ip addresses, but big problem is that rule.
Still, do like first posted said 'don't post the message here. Post the
whole message, headers and all on a web site and post a url to that message'
OK, I also know there is a queue building up on the dual-core systems,
but hardly any queueing on the single-core.
Sounds like some sort of resource contention issue.
Are there any parts of SA / spamd that all children access but that only
exists as a single instance?
Quite probably, but
Hi all...
I was doing some tests with all the recommendations you sent me...
and I can make to work the server correctly... I was filtering spam with
no problems and my performances troubles dissapeard...
I just configured 5 procs for amavis and postfix content filter and
I
John Hardin schrieb:
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Thomas Zastrow wrote:
bayes_path /path/to/.spamassassin
Burt then, I get the error:
[3936] info: config: SpamAssassin failed to parse line,
/path/to/.spamassassin is not valid for bayes_path, skipping:
bayes_path /path/to/.spamassassin
So, there
mouss wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Swinog has no listing for this url - so why does spamassassin mark
this mail?
[snip]
so now you reject my mail because it is spam?
client and sender domain added to local permanent blocklist.
bounce:
This is the mail system at host
Thomas Zastrow wrote:
I have a new server where I installed Spamassassin. Next, I took a
maildir with a lot of spam and learned the filter:
sa-learn --spam --showdots /path/to/maildir
Did you learn some non-spam, too?
Bayes needs at least 200 of each before it will work.
Hope this helps,
Luis,
I was doing some tests with all the recommendations you sent me...
and I can make to work the server correctly... I was filtering spam with
no problems and my performances troubles dissapeard...
I just configured 5 procs for amavis and postfix content filter and
I turn off
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Mark Martinec wrote:
Luis,
I was doing some tests with all the recommendations you sent me...
and I can make to work the server correctly... I was filtering spam with
no problems and my performances troubles dissapeard...
I just configured 5 procs for amavis and
In order to reduce backscattering, I'm using an additional milter-regex
on the systems processing outgoing messages. This milter-regex try to
recognize backscattered messages as well as spam marked messages
redirected to addresses outside off the protected perimeter. Although
this method is
Yet Another Ninja a écrit :
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/90_2tld.cf
# Last Mod: 11/1/2008
At first I wondered why you were posting now about an update from 11
January - until I realised that this was US date format. How about
2008-11-01 (ISO 8601) as a universal format?
John.
--
18 matches
Mail list logo
