On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Luis campo wrote:
I have the problem that many SPAM emails being filtered to the mail box
users, who might that be?
what would be the problem that keeps coming in much spam our users, and
that he could do to catch any mail that has no distinction as a public
issue that i
20.10.2009 17:44, McDonald, Dan kirjoitti:
>> whitelist_from *...@enerquimica.com
>
> whitelist_from should generally be avoided. find out if these senders
> have published an spf record, or use DKIM signing, then use
> whitelist_from_spf or whitelist_from_dkim instead of whitelist_from
>
IMO
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 14:23 +, Luis campo wrote:
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I have the problem that many SPAM emails being filtered to the mail
> box users, who might that be?
Guys, don't waste your breathe. Looks familiar?
http://markmail.org/thread/koiqiu7ijyso7rbn
Luis Campo and Jose Luis Marin
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 14:23 +, Luis campo wrote:
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I have the problem that many SPAM emails being filtered to the mail
> box users, who might that be?
>
> what would be the problem that keeps coming in much spam our users,
> and that he could do to catch any mail that has no
Luis campo wrote:
> *
> skip_rbl_checks 1
> *
RBL checks are quite useful. Why are you skipping them?
> *#Con esto evalua cada mensaje, se requiere un 5.0 para marcarlo como
> spam
> required_hits 3
> *
Spamassassin is designed to score spam at 5 points. If you lower this
score, you are riski
s can be a problem for
SpamAssassin?
- Which tool can I use to get statistics of SpamAssassin, I am currently using
the script "sa-stats.pl".
Thanks
Jose Luis
> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:33:26 -0700
> From: jhar...@impsec.org
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subj
On 09/23/2009 12:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/23/2009 12:36 PM, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
3. Add SARE rules
Why is anyone still using SARE rules when they haven't been updated
for years?
Because they still get hits?
I get fairly good results
> Dear Sirs,
>
> So is the option-x is in spamassassin.rc:
>
Stop right there!
Like I wrote in another reply, it goes to spamc that -x option.
But do not forget thxt -x in your spamassassin.rc!! spamd also has -x option,
which means --no-user-config
You do not want that, at least because of
> Dear Sirs,
>
> So is the option-x is in spamassassin.rc:
>
Negative. It is an option for spamc.
it goes to your simscan options
> I configured Simscan with these options:
>
> ./configure --enable-clamav=y
> --enable-clamdscan=/usr/local/bin/clamdscan
> --enable-dropmsg=y --enable-custom-sm
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
So is the option-x is in spamassassin.rc:
/usr/bin/spamd -v -u vpopmail -m 5 -x -q -s stderr -r
/var/run/spamd/spamd.pid \
-i 172.16.10.20 -A 172.16.10.0/24 2>&1 | \
This is incorrect. -x needs to be given to spamc.
./configur
ed=y --enable-spam-hits=5.0
--enable-spamc=/usr/bin/spamc --enable-spamc-args=-s 20 -t 60 -d
172.16.10.20 --enable-spamc-user=y --enable-regex=y --with-pcre-include=/usr/local/include
--enable-quarantinedir
Thanks
Jose Luis
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:33:26 -0700
From: jhar...@impsec.org
To:
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 13:06 -0500, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> Dear Sirs
>
> A few moments ago I noticed that SA was not assigned any score for
> SPAM emails, reviewing the log I see this:
>
How long is SA taking to scan mails and what proportion of the total are
timing out and skipping the
y --with-pcre-include=/usr/local/include --enable-quarantinedir
Thanks
Jose Luis
> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:33:26 -0700
> From: jhar...@impsec.org
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Problems with high spam
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
&g
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
- the high load is because of high number of spamd
children running.
- the missing scores of some emails are because you need
more of spamd children running, connections are refused
so any spamc client just passes messages as they are.
And this
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:38:00 +0300
"Jari Fredriksson" wrote:
> Wow. You have 512 megabytes RAM?
>
> I have half of that, and 2 childs is all I can allocate. Goes
> swapping beyond that.
>
> One child takes 51 megabytes resident RAM on my machine. Do the math.
But presumably a lot of that 51 M
>
> - the high load is because of high number of spamd
> children running.
>
> - the missing scores of some emails are because you need
> more of spamd children running, connections are refused
> so any spamc client just passes messages as they are.
>
And this is where spamc option -x helps.
On 23.09.09 13:06, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> A few moments ago I noticed that SA was not assigned any score for SPAM
> emails, reviewing the log I see this:
>
> @40004aba627c21bee88c [25630] info: spamd: got connection over
> /tmp/spamd.sock
> @40004aba627c21dbc344 [10362] info: p
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
@40004aba627c21dbc344 [10362] info: prefork: child states:
As others have noted, you have too many child processes running.
Try "-m 5" on your spamd command line rather than "-m 20"
cpu
Cpu(s): 89.2% us, 9.8% sy,
On 23.09.09 11:36, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> I made some modifications and additions to the configuration of SA
>
> 1. Modify required_score from 3.5 to 5.0
>
> 2. Add RBL
>
> 3. Add SARE rules
I think I advised you to remove some SARE rules and use DNSBL plugin instead
> 4. Add
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>
> > Dear Sirs,
> >
> > So runs Spamd
> >
> >>> states:
> >
> > /usr/bin/spamd -v -u vpopmail -m 20 -x -q -s stderr -r
> > /var/run/spamd/spamd.pid
> >
> > If I have about 10,000 emails to have less processes
> > SpamD
> Dear Sirs,
>
> So runs Spamd
>
>>> states:
>
> /usr/bin/spamd -v -u vpopmail -m 20 -x -q -s stderr -r
> /var/run/spamd/spamd.pid
>
> If I have about 10,000 emails to have less processes
> SpamD (Example 5) did not cause problems?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jose Luis
>
Well 1
bject: Re: Problems with high spam
> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:38:00 +0300
>
> > Dear Sirs
> >
> > A few moments ago I noticed that SA was not assigned any
> > score for SPAM emails, reviewing the log I see this:
> >
> > states:
>
> Dear Sirs
>
> A few moments ago I noticed that SA was not assigned any
> score for SPAM emails, reviewing the log I see this:
>
> states:
Wow. You have 512 megabytes RAM?
I have half of that, and 2 childs is all I can allocate. Goes swapping beyond
that.
One child tak
se Luis> From:
>
maybe. probably not. who knows?
why was your system load at 21? maybe you just have way too many instances
of spamassasin running
maybe you've got your system configured in a really inefficient way.
how could we know?
> list...@abbacomm.net
> > To: use
comm.net
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Problems with high spam
> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:27:38 -0700
>
>
>
> > but it could be nice that sare rules was checked in the mass
> > check for 3.3.x to get the best rules out in new rule sets
> >
&
> but it could be nice that sare rules was checked in the mass
> check for 3.3.x to get the best rules out in new rule sets
>
> or would some other try this ?
>
> --
> xpoint
Benny!
excellent idea in general...
will those in authority in SA team please act upon this and tell us in some
pos
On ons 23 sep 2009 18:50:12 CEST, Warren Togami wrote
Why is anyone still using SARE rules when they haven't been updated
for years?
not all sare rules need to be updated, so some of them is still usefull
but it could be nice that sare rules was checked in the mass check for
3.3.x to get the b
On 23-Sep-2009, at 10:50, Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/23/2009 12:36 PM, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
3. Add SARE rules
Why is anyone still using SARE rules when they haven't been updated
for years?
Did they stop working?
--
"I don't care if Bill Gates is the world's biggest philanthropist.
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/23/2009 12:36 PM, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
3. Add SARE rules
Why is anyone still using SARE rules when they haven't been updated for
years?
Because they still get hits?
I get fairly good results on the SARE fraud rules, for example. The
On 09/23/2009 12:36 PM, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
3. Add SARE rules
Why is anyone still using SARE rules when they haven't been updated for
years?
Warren
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
As might improve my antispam system?
Are you using Bayes? If you are not, then set up Bayes and train it with
several hundred spam and ham messages, and see if that improves things.
We cannot make more specific suggestions without samples of
200
> From: uh...@fantomas.sk
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Problems with high spam
>
> On 22.09.09 15:02, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> > Thank you for your answers
> >
> > Qmail-Smtpd have the following RBL configured:
> >
On 22.09.09 15:02, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> Thank you for your answers
>
> Qmail-Smtpd have the following RBL configured:
>
> bl.spamcop.net
> cbl.abuseat.org
> combined.njabl.org
combined.njabl.org used to include dynablock.njabl.org which was imported
spamhaus PBL. Now it's equal t
Hi!
Also consider the invalument block lists, see http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/
A very, very good list that is usable for blocking. Not free, but
very affordable.
I don't like how involvement does their pricing structure, actually.
Firstly, I don't feel comfortable telling a 3rd party how ma
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:21 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 22-Sep-2009, at 14:42, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>
>> Also consider the invalument block lists, see
>> http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/
>> A very, very good list that is usable for blocking. Not free, but
>> very affordable.
>>
>
> I don't like how inv
On 22-Sep-2009, at 14:42, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
Also consider the invalument block lists, see http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/
A very, very good list that is usable for blocking. Not free, but
very affordable.
I don't like how involvement does their pricing structure, actually.
Firstly, I don't fe
txt
> echo "70_sare_whitelist.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net" >>
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/sare-sa-update-channels.txt
> echo "70_sare_whitelist_rcvd.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net" >>
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/sare-sa-update-channels.txt
> echo "7
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
echo "70_sare_highrisk.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net" >>
/etc/mail/spamassassin/sare-sa-update-channels.txt
Did you read the ruleset descriptions before choosing which ones to use?
Inquire about rules SOUGHT
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassa
Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> Dear Sirs.
>
> Thank you for your answers
>
> Qmail-Smtpd have the following RBL configured:
>
> * bl.spamcop.net
> cbl.abuseat.org
> combined.njabl.org
> *
You might want to try zen.spamhaus.org. That is the only one I trust
enough to block mail on my MTA.
> These
t;>
/etc/mail/spamassassin/sare-sa-update-channels.txt
echo "72_sare_bml_post25x.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net" >>
/etc/mail/spamassassin/sare-sa-update-channels.txt
echo "72_sare_redirect_post3.0.0.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net" >>
/etc/mail/spamassassin/sare-sa-upda
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
I'll gather some examples of emails that my users are considered as SPAM
(Latest I could configure SA to display the report in the headers)
Regarding the questions:
1. Yes I have set up qmail-smtpd to use rblsmtpd and definitively blocks
a
t
of mails before the SA can analyze.
2. I am using any third-party SA. But I will install now.
Thanks for your reply
Jose Luis
> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:00:12 -0700
> From: jhar...@impsec.org
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> CC: aawo...@gmail.com
> Subject: RE: Pro
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
Additionally I noticed that there are emails that should detect as SPAM
(for example those of 100 points - Advertising) but not filtered.
What more could add or remove the configuration of the SA?
First we need to see why they aren't being sc
Jose Luis
> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:36:24 -0400
> Subject: Re: Problems with high spam
> From: aawo...@gmail.com
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 09:58 -0500, Jose Luis Marin Pere
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 09:58 -0500, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
>
>> I will implement improvements in the configuration suggested and
>> observe the results, however, that more could be suggested to improve
>> my spam service?
>>
> I thin
On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 09:58 -0500, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> I will implement improvements in the configuration suggested and
> observe the results, however, that more could be suggested to improve
> my spam service?
>
I think you need to find out more about where your system resources are
used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem: 501284216 0 24 41
-/+ buffers/cache:218282
Swap: 1027 59968
Thanks for your time and support.
Jose Luis
> Subject: Re: Problems with high s
> > also if using amavisd make its temp dir on ram speed up scanning and it
> > considered safe, mta have it on disk for the backup :)
On 19.09.09 00:56, MySQL Student wrote:
> How about mounting /var with noatime? Does anyone do that? Do you
> think it helps? What Linux filesystem is best suited
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 02:23 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> 2009/9/18 Karsten Bräckelmann:
> > This machine NEEDS more RAM. In fact, I'd guess half of the spam
> > slipping through is due to timeouts. Thrashing into hell.
>
> throwing ram at a server is not a solution in this case. 512MB is
> suffici
2009/9/18 Karsten Bräckelmann :
> On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 09:48 +1200, Jason Haar wrote:
>> On 09/19/2009 09:13 AM, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
>> > For more than 1 emails a day how much memory should be the server?
>> > as one can calculate the amount of memory needed?
>>
>> 10,000 a day means
Hi,
> also if using amavisd make its temp dir on ram speed up scanning and it
> considered safe, mta have it on disk for the backup :)
How about mounting /var with noatime? Does anyone do that? Do you
think it helps? What Linux filesystem is best suited for this? ext4?
Thanks,
Alex
On lør 19 sep 2009 00:27:00 CEST, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote
Think increasing to 2 GB of RAM is enough?
2M ram is enough if it does not swap :=)
more ram is nice what ever you like to do, but what it counts is if it
swasps you need more ram, even if you have 2G or more, it does not
make
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 18:24 -0500, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> > > Voy analizar cada entrada de whitelist_from
> >
> > Pardon? That doesn't parse here... ;)
>
> Sorry :-)
>
> I analyze each entry whitelist_from
OK, and you should. They are almost free passes for any spam forging
those addr
Thanks for the answers
> Subject: RE: Problems with high spam
> From: guent...@rudersport.de
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:45:23 +0200
>
> On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:27 -0500, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> > > > > > 512 MB R
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:27 -0500, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> > > > > 512 MB Ram
> > > >
> > > > Ouch -- that server could go with some RAM, don't you think? No hard
> > > > numbers, but given your 10k+ messages a day, I guess that's about the
> > > > bare minimum.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, you men
Thanks for the answers
> Subject: RE: Problems with high spam
> From: guent...@rudersport.de
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:45:22 +0200
>
> On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 16:13 -0500, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> > > > 512 MB Ram
> >
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 09:48 +1200, Jason Haar wrote:
> On 09/19/2009 09:13 AM, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> > For more than 1 emails a day how much memory should be the server?
> > as one can calculate the amount of memory needed?
>
> 10,000 a day means you are running a "real" mail server (
> > skip_rbl_checks 1
>
> You *disabled* DNS BL checks. Enabling them should drastically improve
> results. You'd likely want a local, caching nameserver.
More details. What DNS server do you use? Your ISPs one?
You should check the test-points for URIBL and SpamHaus (the latter
after enabling R
On 09/19/2009 09:13 AM, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
>
> For more than 1 emails a day how much memory should be the server?
> as one can calculate the amount of memory needed?
>
10,000 a day means you are running a "real" mail server (ie not just for
your home), as such you really need a "real
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 16:13 -0500, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> > > 512 MB Ram
> >
> > Ouch -- that server could go with some RAM, don't you think? No hard
> > numbers, but given your 10k+ messages a day, I guess that's about the
> > bare minimum.
> >
> > Oh, you mentioned yesterday running Cla
Dear Sirs,
Thanks for your answers.
> Subject: Re: Problems with high spam
> From: guent...@rudersport.de
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:41:31 +0200
>
> On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 13:51 -0500, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> > I have th
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 16:38 -0400, Dan Schaefer wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > However, I'm pretty sure he merely describes a rule named "is", which is
> > non-fatal.
>
> I added that line to my config and ran spamassassin --lint and
> received the following error:
So did I, to back up
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 16:06 -0400, Dan Schaefer wrote:
Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
body ELLE /is this ELLE/
describe is this ELLE Publicidad
score ELLE 10.0
It appears that you are missing ELLE after describe. If you have
spelling/format issues in you
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 16:06 -0400, Dan Schaefer wrote:
> Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> >
> > body ELLE /is this ELLE/
> > describe is this ELLE Publicidad
> > score ELLE 10.0
>
> It appears that you are missing ELLE after describe. If you have
> spelling/format issues in your configuration, SA
Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
*
**body ELLE /is this ELLE/
describe is this ELLE Publicidad
score ELLE 10.0*
It appears that you are missing ELLE after describe. If you have
spelling/format issues in your configuration, SA may not work at all.
Run "spamassassin --lint" to see if you have any wa
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 13:51 -0500, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
> I have the problem that many SPAM emails being filtered to the mail
> box users, who might that be?
>
> These are the statistics from yesterday:
> Although filters 54% of users are reporting much SPAM
About half of the mail in-
66 matches
Mail list logo
