Sometimes SA may time out. If it does there are no SA markups in the
messages. Makes it easy to test for.
{^_^}
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric A. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jerome Cartagena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: 2005 February, 25, Friday 16:14
Subject: Re: Strange SpamAssassin Statistical Performance
>
> That's MailScanner; I'm suggesting that if you look to see if it was
> processed through SA or not (MS might be skipping if no processes are
> available, or might be using the wrong queue, or any number of other
> things could be going wrong).
>
> On 2/25/2005 6:51 PM, Jerome Cartagena wrote:
> > MailScanner does alter the Raw headers of each mail message and I can
> > verify that each message does not get delivered to the user's INBOX
> > until it has been processed.
> >
> > ~Jerome Cartagena
> >
> >
> > On Feb 25, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 2/25/2005 2:00 PM, Jerome Cartagena wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>according to the graphs, the number of detected spam has a steady
> >>>upper
> >>>limit while the actual number of undetected spam fluctuates wildly.
> >>
> >>Can you tell if the undetected spam is getting processed (I like to tag
> >>all mail regardless of score).
> >>
> >>From your sentence above it sounds like you don't have enough processes
> >>for the volume and the overflow mail is taking a shortcut.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Eric A. Hall
> >>http://www.ehsco.com/
> >>Internet Core Protocols
> >>http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
> Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
