Re: spamassassin 3.3.1 for Debian Lenny

* Alessio Cecchi ales...@skye.it [20100415 10:23]: now we are running spamassassin 3.3.0 on debian lenny, package is installed from backports. Nobody knows if it was packaged (.deb) version 3.3.1 for lenny? Version 3.3.1-1 is in Debian testing (as of 2010-04-05), but hasn't made it to

Re: Using Pzyor with high volume

* Robert Blayzor [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20080430 07:46]: In regards to Pyzor. I'm wondering if anyone out there is using this at any large scale. Unlike the razor-agent which appears to be a Perl module that gets loaded at startup, I'm concerned about SA having to exec the python interpreter

Re: Using Pzyor with high volume

* Jason J. Ellingson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20080430 10:59]: I decided to look into this as well. I managed to get ReadyExec installed, but am having difficulty changing the Pyzor.pm to find and use readyexec properly. Anyone else have luck? This works for me: readyexecd.py /tmp/pyzor

Re: Using Pzyor with high volume

* Jason J. Ellingson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20080430 11:07]: Yup... I got the server portion running... The trick now is to get SpamAssassin to use readyexec /tmp/pyzor instead of just pyzor... Any suggestions? I was looking at modifying Pyzor.pm in the SpamAssassin perl directory. Something

Re: Using Pzyor with high volume

* Jason J. Ellingson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20080430 13:21]: I am trying those settings, yet I get no Pyzor hits. I can manually do a readyexec /tmp/pyzor ping which works fine... Any other suggestions? Try running spamassassin with debug mode on (-D) look for pyzor related stuff. Ben --

Re: Pyzor and cloudmark

* Matus UHLAR - fantomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20080313 07:59]: Is anyone using pyzor ? both server and client here yes looking at it now, I got no PYZOR catches last day :( FWIW, at our site PYZOR_CHECK fires on about 65% of all of our spam. We had a total of 7523 hits for PYZOR_CHECK

Re: URIDNSBL.pm improvements in 3.1?

* Stuart Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20050603 11:09]: Is there any straightforward way to backport some of this goodness to 3.0.x? I don't mind running the development snapshots at home but at work I have to answer to a couple thousand users... Here is the bug concerning the copy-paste

URIDNSBL.pm improvements in 3.1?

So I've noticed that the URIDNSBL.pm in the 3.1 snapshots seems to recognize obfuscated URIs much better than in 3.0.x. In other words I was looking at a message that my relatively well maintained 3.0.3 installation didn't catch. Then I tried running the same message through my personal 3.1

highly available sitewide bayes, local db vs. sql

What sort of experiences have people had managing a sitewide bayes db that is used by spamassassin (spamd|amavisd) instances on multiple machines? I've got an environment with spamassassin/amavisd-new running in parallel on a pool of two (but possibly more in the future) equally weighted

Re: bayes_expiry_max_db_size setting for sitewide installation?

* Ben Poliakoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20050223 11:46]: What sort of guidelines/rules of thumb/formulas have people used to determine the bayes_expiry_max_db_size setting for a sitewide bayes database? Thanks Matt, Kris, and Kai, Very useful comments all around. I now have some reasonable