Hi,
Where can I find sa-awlUtil as it does not appear to be in the download file ?
Best Regards,
--
SplatNIX IT Services :: Innovation through collaboration
hi -- turn off Bayes and AWL.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 07:55, poifgh wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I was measuring how quickly could SA [spam assassin] process spams when
> several SA processes are run in parallel over separate mbox files. I used a
> 8 core machine. Below are the numbers when I forked differen
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:55:21PM -0700, poifgh wrote:
> Why am I not seeing a linear increase in the throughput?
> Is a file locking creating the bottleneck?
Maybe the auto white list.
--
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0700, poifgh wrote:
> Hi
>
> I was measuring how quickly could SA [spam assassin] process spams when
> several SA processes are run in parallel over separate mbox files. I used a
> 8 core machine. Below are the numbers when I forked different number of
> processes.
>
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with that if they did not fill
> their gay little boxes with hardware rubbish from the floors of MSI and
> supermicro. Jesus, try and process that many messages with a $30,000
> Barracuda and wat
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32:42AM +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0700, poifgh wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I was measuring how quickly could SA [spam assassin] process spams when
> > several SA processes are run in parallel over separate mbox files. I used a
> > 8 co
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:53 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with that if they did not fill
> > their gay little boxes with hardware rubbish from the floors of MSI and
> > supermicro. Jesus, try
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0700, poifgh wrote:
[...]
> I was measuring how quickly could SA [spam assassin] process spams when
> several SA processes are run in parallel over separate mbox files. I used a
> 8 core machine. Below are the numbers when I forked different number of
> processes.
>
>
--[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Where can I find sa-awlUtil as it does not appear to be in the download file
> ?
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
Hmmm, it looks like someone has been editing the wiki in ways that don't
match anything in any released or unreleased version of SA.
The tool is named check-
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:53 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
>> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with that if they did not fill
>>> their gay little boxes with hardware rubbish from th
I have a post I have tried several times over the last week to post to this
forum and it never seems to get posted. I don't understand why?
There is nothing exotic about it, just text, a question and email header info
I pasted.
Any idea whats up?
Thanks,
Wes
- "twofers" wrote:
>
I have a post I have tried several times over the last week to post to this
forum and it never seems to get posted. I don't understand why?
There is nothing exotic about it, just text, a question and email header info I
pasted.
Any idea whats up?
Thanks,
Wes
>
Quoting twofers :
I have a post I have tried several times over the last week to post
to this forum and it never seems to get posted. I don't understand
why?
There is nothing exotic about it, just text, a question and email
header info I pasted.
Any idea whats up?
Thanks,
Wes
Quoting LuKreme :
On Jul 30, 2009, at 18:12, "Dennis B. Hopp" wrote:
Yeah I knew that. I have a few negative scoring rules but not many
(outside of what might be in the misc rules sets I have). What is
a good threshold for ham then?
5.0 is the score SA us designed for. It's a very goo
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:55:48 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> The default of 0.1. It's a default for a reason.
>
> But that *really* is not your problem. Your problem is with learning
> spam, not learning even more ham. Just as you mentioned in your
> original report. See my previous response
> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 16:46 +0200, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> > * Matus UHLAR - fantomas [2009-07-30 16:35]:
> > > On 30.07.09 14:03, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
>
> > > > I was under the impression that whitelist_from_rcvd checks if the
> > > > reverse lookup is forged. But still with the fol
Quoting RW :
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:55:48 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
The default of 0.1. It's a default for a reason.
But that *really* is not your problem. Your problem is with learning
spam, not learning even more ham. Just as you mentioned in your
original report. See my previous r
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 19:30 -0700, Stefan Malte Schumacher wrote:
> Hello
A Nabble user with a name. Hooray! :)
> :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> | spamassassin
I suggest running the spamd daemon, and then change that to call spamc
rather than plain spamassassin. That eliminates the start-up penalty f
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
I cleared my maia statistics a couple of days ago. Since then BAYES_00 has
triggered 4510 times, BAYES_99 2366 times and BAYES_50 1568 (all the other
BAYES_XX are less then 1000 times).
Do they all add up to about 45,000?
In those same couple of da
Michael Hutchinson schrieb:
Gidday Peter,
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting a bit hacked of with
this
1980's style forum. I'm trying to get to the bottom of an SA issue and
this
list/forum thing is giving me a bigger headache than SA!
It's a bit like that when you're using Maili
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 07:53 -0500, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
> I know that the bayes success rate comes down to training, but like
> every other administrator I can't possible check every message for
> accuracy and I was hoping to make the auto learn a little better. I
> thought maybe I just did
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 06:07 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
>
> > I cleared my maia statistics a couple of days ago. Since then BAYES_00 has
> > triggered 4510 times, BAYES_99 2366 times and BAYES_50 1568 (all the other
> > BAYES_XX are less then 1000 time
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 07:26 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:53 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
> >> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >>> Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with that if they
Quoting John Hardin :
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
I cleared my maia statistics a couple of days ago. Since then
BAYES_00 has triggered 4510 times, BAYES_99 2366 times and BAYES_50
1568 (all the other BAYES_XX are less then 1000 times).
Do they all add up to about 45,000?
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:53:00 -0500
"Dennis B. Hopp" wrote:
> I cleared my maia statistics a couple of days ago. Since then
> BAYES_00 has triggered 4510 times, BAYES_99 2366 times and BAYES_50
> 1568 (all the other BAYES_XX are less then 1000 times). In those
> same couple of days we have p
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, RW wrote:
The main issue here is that your numbers don't add up, only about 1 in
10 of your 45,000 messages processed by spamassassin are accounted for
in the BAYES statistics.
...which was my point. Rather than troubleshooting learning, at this point
Dennis should be tr
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
... dropping in here and making jokes at such low hanging fruit.
Make all the jokes at Barracuda's expense that you like, complain about
them all you like, just avoid offensive language. Vitriol is more
impressive if you are creative enough
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
Quoting John Hardin :
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
> I cleared my maia statistics a couple of days ago. Since then
> BAYES_00 has triggered 4510 times, BAYES_99 2366 times and BAYES_50
> 1568 (all the other BAYES_XX are less then 100
Quoting Karsten Bräckelmann :
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 06:07 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
> I cleared my maia statistics a couple of days ago. Since then
BAYES_00 has
> triggered 4510 times, BAYES_99 2366 times and BAYES_50 1568 (all the other
> BAYES
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 08:25 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > ... dropping in here and making jokes at such low hanging fruit.
>
> Make all the jokes at Barracuda's expense that you like, complain about
> them all you like, just avoid offensive
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 10:36 -0500, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
> I couldn't get sa-stats to give me any useful information.
AFAIK it understands spamd logs, not Amavis logs. You would need to
adjust the script for that -- as discussed just a few days ago.
> If I'm reading that correctly less then 50%
Quoting Karsten Bräckelmann :
If I'm reading that correctly less then 50% of mail is actually
being filtered (seems like it should be higher then that). Those stats
Actually, the numbers you gave for the "last couple days" are even
lower. About one third, <15k out of 45k do have a BAYES_xx hit
Dennis,
On 7/31/2009 8:36 AM, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
I couldn't get sa-stats to give me any useful information. I did get
amavis-logwatch and I am not sure if I like what it's showing me. I ran it
against the last few maillogs I have so it encompasses basically the
last month. Here is the relev
Henrik K wrote:
>
> Yeah, given that my 4x3Ghz box masscheck peaks at 22 msgs/sec, without
> Net/AWL/Bayes. But that's the 3.3 SVN ruleset.. wonder what version was
> used
> and any nondefault rules/settings? Certainly sounds strange that 1 core
> could top out the same. Anyone else have figure
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0700, poifgh wrote:
> [...]
>> I ran freshly build SA with Bayes and DNSBL turned off. Why am I not
>> seeing
>> a linear increase in the throughput? Is a file locking creating the
> Because the bottleneck is not (only) the CPUs?
> Run `v
c. r. wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:55:21PM -0700, poifgh wrote:
>> Why am I not seeing a linear increase in the throughput?
>> Is a file locking creating the bottleneck?
>
> Maybe the auto white list.
>
> --
>
I can try turning off AWL and get back here..
Thnx
--
View this mess
Henrik K wrote:
>
> Yeah, given that my 4x3Ghz box masscheck peaks at 22 msgs/sec, without
> Net/AWL/Bayes. But that's the 3.3 SVN ruleset.. wonder what version was
> used
> and any nondefault rules/settings? Certainly sounds strange that 1 core
> could top out the same. Anyone else have figure
I'm assuming you run a tad more messages than I, but on a quad with a
failover I have never seen the failover kick in 4 years. This is not
disputing your observations, just noting mine.
I claim absolutely no knowledge about the core processing/stacking
though I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) t
In my tests - there was not MTA. The mails/spam were collected from some
server in mbox format and fed to SA using --mbox switch. The size of msgs
was not altered in any fashion - just the usual size of incoming spam/mails
There are no AV [you mean Anti Virus right?] running on the machine
Would
This seems to be a newer tactic, and a lot of email with content
poisoning seems to be slipping through our spam filters. The reason
is all the "legitimate" content between tags. Most email apps
don't show the data between