Dianne Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 14:39:43 -0500 (CDT)
David B Funk wrote:
[snip]
Define two classes of recipients:
class A == all users who want everything
class B == all users who want "standard" filtering
This works if you have a limited number of classes, but in some cases
Marc Stürmer wrote:
Am 2017-01-09 22:30, schrieb L A Walsh:
I have:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -5.0
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 10.0
In order for autolearn to work you need at least 200 trained messages
in the ham and spam category. If the filter doesn't know enough mails
yet it
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, L A Walsh wrote:
I have:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -5.0
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 10.0
in my user_prefs. When I get a message though, I see autolearn being
set to 'no':
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=18.7 req=4.8..autolearn=no
autolearn_
Dave Warren wrote:
On 2014-08-29 02:38, Marcin Mirosław wrote:
So what should I do in your opinion? I'm getting spam to my private
spamtrap so I can't fill fields about company - it doesn't matter where
I'm hired for reporting spam. What if I would be unemployed? Then I
would have to lie about c
Karsten Br�� wrote:
Similarly, your scripts do not reject messages, but choose not to fetch
them.
===
No... fetchmail fetches them, "sendmail" rejects them because they
don't have a resolvable domain. My sorting and spamassassin scripts
get called after the em
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 1/16/12 9:36 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
This is not permission problem --
Message I get:
have you tried to upgrade to the released version? 3.3.2?
3.0.2 was obsolete 6 years ago.
---
Well, I could pretend like you wouldn't have guessed it was
a typo and
This is not permission problem --
Message I get:
bayes: cannot open bayes databases /home/lw_spam/.spamassassin/bayes_* R/O: tie
failed:
bayes: cannot open bayes databases /home/lw_spam/.spamassassin/bayes_* R/W: tie
failed: No such file or directory
---
Except I followed it through using str
Linda Walsh wrote:
Sorry, included that in my subject
I did run sa-update, all it says (put it in verbose mode) is that
the rules are up to date.
Initially it did download the rules into
/var/lib/spamassassin//.
Those files are still there, but spamd is,
apparently, not seeing them
Sorry, included that in my subject
I did run sa-update, all it says (put it in verbose mode) is that
the rules are up to date.
Initially it did download the rules into
/var/lib/spamassassin//.
Those files are still there, but spamd is,
apparently, not seeing them.
Martin Gregorie wrote
I wanted to try to head off an increasing spam count I'd gotten
since I upgraded my suse server to 11.4 ...
So I tried cpan to goto 3.3.2, but now...it says ..
no rules!...I've tried putting rules in just about every dir I can think
of...
I had it running as as a daemon before - I thought it ra
)...it's all in packet latency that's the
prob.
On 8 Aug 2009, Linda Walsh spake thusly:
OK, you've out-RAIDed me.
It's a server. Mostly unraided...sorta...4 of them are in 2 VD's in
mirror mode. the system disk is a 15K SAS, but only 70G space. The rest
Per Jessen wrote:
But how about the core subject here - the hyperthreading? Have you
noticed anything very different wrt that? I haven't, but it will
certainly depend on your workload.
Definitely will depend on workload. But I noticed more power
consumption and it seemed to han
.16s, mean=27.43s
I suppose for RBL's, some of those results are cached in bind as well?
I wonder if there's anyway to speed up priming the cache before downloading a
bunch of emails (not that I'm off line for that long usually) -- but it's sorta
too bad bind doesn't save i
Per Jessen wrote:
Not sure about that - AFAICT, it's exactly the same technology. (I
haven't done in exhaustive tests though).
Supposedly 'Very' different (I hope)...
1) You can't turn it off in the BIOS
2) claim of benefit from increased cache (FALSE),
(have older 2x2 Dual C
Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores that
were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores, or
HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed down a good
many workloads unless they were tightly constructed to work on the same
data in
May I point out, that while you may find the language crude -- it isn't
language that would violate FTC standards in that in used any of the
7 or so 'unmentionable words'...
People -- these standards of 'crude language' really need to be strongly
held 'in check' -- the US is 'supposed' to be th
It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
Americans all disturbed.
Funny, used to be the other way around...but well...times change.
Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with
Jeff Mincy wrote:
From: Linda Walsh
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:48:43 -0700
Bowie Bailey wrote: >
At face value, this seems very counter productive.
You still aren't understanding the wiki or the AWL scoring or what AWL
is trying to do.
Ah, but
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your AWL.
This is probably the most misunderstood component of SA
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
I got a really poorly scored piece of spam -- one thing that stood out
as weird was report claimed the sender was in my AWL.
Any sender who has sent mail to you previously will be in your AWL.
This is probably the most misunderstood component of SA
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
I see this message coming out of my SA alot these days
since upgrading to
3.2.5:
[23920] warn: netset: cannot include 127.0.0.0/8 as it
has already been included
Where is this local net being 'included', and how can I
suppress
the duplicate inclusion message?
Th
I see this message coming out of my SA alot these days since upgrading to
3.2.5:
[23920] warn: netset: cannot include 127.0.0.0/8 as it has already been included
Where is this local net being 'included', and how can I suppress
the duplicate inclusion message?
Thanks,
linda
LuKreme wrote:
On 1-Apr-2009, at 13:27, Linda Walsh wrote:
*ouch* -- you mean each message writes out an 80MB white-list file?
That's alot of I/O per message, no wonder spamd seems to be slowing
down...
No these are DB files. Data is added to them, this does not
necess
01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
Matt Kettler wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
I see 3 DB's in my user directory (.spamassassin).
auto-whitelist (~80MB), bayes_seen (~40MB), bayes_toks (~20MB)
expiry will only a
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
I get many emails addressed to internal sendmail 's.
123...@mydomain, 1abd56.ef7...@mydomain
(seem to fit a basic pattern but don't know how to specify the
pattern (or I don't have it right):
<(start of an email-addres
Matt Kettler wrote:
I see 3 DB's in my user directory (.spamassassin).
auto-whitelist (~80MB), bayes_seen (~40MB), bayes_toks (~20MB)
Was trying to find relation of 'bayes_expiry_max_db_size' to the physical
size of the above files.
---
expiry will only affect bayes_toks. Currently
I see 3 DB's in my user directory (.spamassassin).
auto-whitelist (~80MB)
bayes_seen (~40MB)
bayes_toks (~20MB)
Was trying to find relation of 'bayes_expiry_max_db_size' to the physical
size of the above files. I'm finding some answers, I've run into some
seeming "contradictions".
John Hardin wrote:
What is AWL rule? Why it gives so different amount of points?
"Auto Whitelist" is a misleading name. It is actually a score averager.
Since the points it applies are based on the historical scoring from
that sender, the score will vary by who the sender is and when the
m
LuKreme wrote:
On 13-Mar-2009, at 12:58, Linda Walsh wrote:
I get many emails addressed to internal sendmail 's.
123...@mydomain or 1abd56.ef7...@mydomain
(seem to fit a basic pattern but don't know how to specify the
pattern (or I don't have it right):
<(start of an e
terns,
not the full perlregexp set (which they below example you gave
me would be an excellent example!) ...
I don't see 'header' as a usable line in "userprefs".
thanks,
-linda
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
> I get many emails addressed to internal sendmai
I get many emails addressed to internal sendmail 's.
123...@mydomain
1abd56.ef7...@mydomain
(seem to fit a basic pattern but don't know how to specify the
pattern (or I don't have it right):
<(start of an email-address)>[0-9][0-9a-fa-f\@mydomain
by start of an email, addr, I mean inside
I have some email accounts that I use with particular vendors or lists. I have
a few email accounts only known to a single person or company.
What I'd like to do is someway of white-listing a "to-addr" if it is from a list
of "from-addrs"else add something (constant?) to its spam score.
A manual expire run took less than 2 minutes -- closer to 1 minuteHow
impatient
is SA ??
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 18:35 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Jul 25 15:28:21 Ishtar spamd[2355]: bayes: expire_old_tokens: child processing
timeout at /usr/bin/spamd line 1085, line 22
Can't install Mail::SpamAssassin in CPAN...
fails at the end...
(not whole log, but enough to give context, I hope
*/usr/bin/perl build/preprocessor -Mconditional -Mvars -DVERSION="3.002005"
-DPREFIX="/usr" -DDEF_RULES_DIR="/usr/share/spamassassin"
-DLOCAL_RULES_DIR="/etc/mail/spamassassin
Matt Kettler wrote:
What version are you running? reading around the child processing
timeout seems to have been a common problem in the 3.1.x series, but
I've not seen it reported in the 3.2.x series.
---
Erp. I'll try upgrading and see what happens...still have a
3.1.7 installed.
Matt Kettler wrote:
The fact that they keep laying around is a problem. This suggests SA
keeps getting killed before the expire can complete. Do you have any
kind of limits set such as CPU time or memory that SA might be running
against and dying?
You can try kicking off an expire manually
In my .spamassassin dir, I see lots of files that look like:
bayes_toks.expire1098 bayes_toks.expire1243 bayes_toks.expire13494
bayes_toks.expire15029 bayes_toks.expire15761 bayes_toks.expire16349
bayes_toks.expire17370 bayes_toks.expire17385 bayes_toks.expire1754
bayes_toks.expire18183
I noticed something about my spamd processes.
There is a "main" process at the top that spawns children.
5 of 6 of the top memory (by %) are 'spamd'.
5/6 top Resident (28M for parent), 40m-49m /child (268M total + parent)
5/7 top Data users (26M for parent) 38-47m/child (259M total + parent)
So
John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, SM wrote:
At 17:46 11-06-2008, Linda Walsh wrote:
How does one decided on 'trust'? I.e. I think it would be
useful to assign a probability to "Trust" at the least. I mean do I put
my ISP in my trusted server list? -
Matthias Leisi wrote:
1) This advice:
| Tue Jun 10 14:55:36 2008 [72096] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not
| configured; it is recommended that you configure trusted_networks
manually
should not be ignored. Setting trusted_networks would slightly reduce
the number of DNS lookups and can avoid
996, it should be:
'[\s,]'
That is, line 996 in lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm should be:
$hdr = Mail::SpamAssassin::Util::wrap($hdr, "\t", "", 79, 0, '[\s,]');
(instead of:
$hdr = Mail::SpamAssassin::Util::wrap($hdr, "\t", ""
t
would be that difficult as they should have a fairly large
number of "test cases" and should know what they changed...
(famous last words).
-Linda
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 05:43:12PM -0800, Linda Walsh wrote:
I've seen this error message in the past few
I've seen this error message in the past few upgrades (~3.11, .12, .17)
and was wondering if anyone else has seen it and knows what the problem is.
---
Dec 24 17:32:53 mailhost spamd[3320]: (?:(?<=[\s,]))* matches null
string many times in regex; marked by <-- HERE in m/\G(?:(?<=[\s,]))*
<-- H
I'm having problems filtering a list I'm on (lkml).
First I had it on normal filter -- but I had too many false
positives. Finally switched it to a white-list, but now, many
true negatives (spam) get through.
Is there a way to "light-grey" a list -- not a blanket accept
all, white-list, but som
I just updated to a newer version of spamassin a few days ago.
Since then I'm getting regular error messages in my spamlog:
Sep 2 03:46:03 Ishtar spamd[13106]: (?:(?<=[\s,]))* matches null string
many times in regex; marked by <-- HERE in m/\G(?:(?<=[\s,]))* <-- HERE
\Z/ at /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.
Matt Kettler wrote:
Yes it does.. the text of the subject line will match against any body rule. SA
pre-pends this so we don't have to have a massive duplication of rules to cover
both body and subject.
---
Ah. Didn't know that. Different tools, different lingo for
message, message hea
I have been receiving a spate of short messages that don't seem
to trigger enough default rules to be knocked out. I was
investigating and noticed a discrepancy [bug?] in the rules.
One particular email refers to the uniquely Male-Body-Part starting
w/"P", let's call MBP for purposes discussion
That doesn't mean it's a moral, an ethical or respectable reason:
"Spite" is reason enough for most people these days.
Michele Neylon:: Blacknight.ie wrote:
if your IPs end up in there it's usually for a
reason.
Michele
Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Samstag, 29. Oktober 2005 06:33 Linda Walsh wrote:
Assuming it is some sort of berkeley db format, what is a good
cut-over size as a "rule-of-thumb"...or is there? What should I
expect in speeds for "sa-learn" or spamc? I.e. -- is there a
Finally got the kinks worked out in my SA-3.1 setup last week. Filtered
out over 420 spams -- maybe 1 false positive, and it was borderline.
The speed on sa-learn has dropped, but that may be unavoidable. But
I'm finally getting >= spam recognition than I had in 2.63.
I have no-online tests en
Loren Wilton wrote:
If you are only correctly classifying 50% of the spam (you said 100 caught
to 100 missed, I htink) then you have SERIOUS problems of some sort.
Yeah, well, I try not to be too reactionary on computer
things like this -- especially when it could just be a
matter o
Ever since I "upgraded" to the 3.x series I've had a major jump
in spams that are getting through.
Initially my upgrade was to 3.02 as distributed in SuSE 9.3 and
my problems were related to old configuration files/options where
NONE of my spam was being tagged into the spam folder (i.e. the SPA
52 matches
Mail list logo
