You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by jpff <jp...@codemist.co.uk> on 2007/04/17 22:09:07 UTC
Spamassassin is useless
Much to my regret I am having to abandon use of spamassassin. If I
include it in my mix (exin/spamassassin/clamav) then as soon it there
is a flurry of mail I get timeouts from spamd, and then errors about
deleteing unallocated memory in spamassassin, and no mail is
delivered. This is very depressing as I have been using spamassassin
with great success for a long time now, but recently it have become a
liability
This is exim 4.65/4.66/4.77 and SA 3.1.x for x in 1-8 on Debian sarge
and etch
So sad
==John ffitch
Re: Spamassassin is useless
Posted by JamesDR <ja...@trusswood.net>.
jpff wrote:
> Much to my regret I am having to abandon use of spamassassin. If I
> include it in my mix (exin/spamassassin/clamav) then as soon it there
> is a flurry of mail I get timeouts from spamd, and then errors about
> deleteing unallocated memory in spamassassin, and no mail is
> delivered. This is very depressing as I have been using spamassassin
> with great success for a long time now, but recently it have become a
> liability
>
> This is exim 4.65/4.66/4.77 and SA 3.1.x for x in 1-8 on Debian sarge
> and etch
>
> So sad
> ==John ffitch
>
>
I wouldn't go so far as to say its useless. I would say, however, that
due to the tricks spammers use to try and get their mail in to our
inboxes (or our customer's inboxes) have required us (either as mail
admins or as companies) to push our boxes to the limit. It has worked
well for me for many years, but I too am feeling the pain. I recently
added FuzzyOcr. While very effective, quite cpu intensive as well.
Money is always tight in IT, even more so when dealing with mail
filtering (unless that is your biz.)
I would say that spammers have forced you to abandon spamassassin (and
in a way, they've won against you.)
I'm sad to hear you've given up on the battle (because it is just that
old battle of good vs evil :-D )
--
Thanks,
James
Re: Spamassassin is useless
Posted by Evan Platt <ev...@espphotography.com>.
At 01:12 PM 4/17/2007, Evan Platt wrote:
>>This is exim 4.65/4.66/4.77 and SA 3.1.x for x in 1-8 on Debian sarge
>>and etch
>
>
>3.1.X? Is that before or after 8?
Ok, I'm retarded. Heh.
Re: Spamassassin is useless
Posted by Evan Platt <ev...@espphotography.com>.
At 12:09 PM 4/17/2007, jpff wrote:
>Much to my regret I am having to abandon use of spamassassin. If I
>include it in my mix (exin/spamassassin/clamav) then as soon it there
>is a flurry of mail I get timeouts from spamd, and then errors about
>deleteing unallocated memory in spamassassin, and no mail is
>delivered. This is very depressing as I have been using spamassassin
>with great success for a long time now, but recently it have become a
>liability
>
>This is exim 4.65/4.66/4.77 and SA 3.1.x for x in 1-8 on Debian sarge
>and etch
3.1.X? Is that before or after 8?
I likely won't be able to help you but for anyone to offer
suggestions, you may want to mention how many e-mails a <day/hour>
your system handles, how much memory, what CPU, etc.
I mean if you're trying to handle 50,000 e-mails an hour on a 486/33,
there's obviously the problem...
Re: Spamassassin is useless
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
> This is generally a good idea and can be easily accomplished in Exim.
> Just add the following condition to your spam checking ACL.
>
> condition = ${if <{$message_size}{500k}{1}{0}}
Or be even more radical and limit it to the 200-250K recommended by SA.
Loren
Re: Spamassassin is useless
Posted by Steven Dickenson <st...@mrchuckles.net>.
Jean-Paul Natola wrote:
> My most recent discovery was SA hanging on huge attachments ( from
> web-designers) , I'm currently TRYING to modify Exim to NOT send messages
> over 500k to SA- as most spam is usually just a few k-
>
This is generally a good idea and can be easily accomplished in Exim.
Just add the following condition to your spam checking ACL.
condition = ${if <{$message_size}{500k}{1}{0}}
Steven
RE: Spamassassin is useless
Posted by Duane Hill <d....@yournetplus.com>.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Jean-Paul Natola wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:09:07PM +0100, jpff wrote:
>> is a flurry of mail I get timeouts from spamd, and then errors about
>> deleteing unallocated memory in spamassassin, and no mail is
>
> If you're getting errors about dealing with memory, that's perl and not
> SpamAssassin. FYI.
>
>
> I'm stepping up my hardware as well- I time out quite frequently, however you
> should check the logs to see WHY its timing out-
>
> I have a PIII 550 384 ram- getting approx 2500 messages a day
>
> My most recent discovery was SA hanging on huge attachments ( from
> web-designers) , I'm currently TRYING to modify Exim to NOT send messages
> over 500k to SA- as most spam is usually just a few k-
If Exim sends to spamd via spamc, 250K is the default message size that
gets scanned. I only scan messages over 128K with the spamc '-s' switch.
> I too am running
>
> SA
> CLAM
> EXIM-
RE: Spamassassin is useless
Posted by Jean-Paul Natola <jn...@familycareintl.org>.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:09:07PM +0100, jpff wrote:
> is a flurry of mail I get timeouts from spamd, and then errors about
> deleteing unallocated memory in spamassassin, and no mail is
If you're getting errors about dealing with memory, that's perl and not
SpamAssassin. FYI.
I'm stepping up my hardware as well- I time out quite frequently, however you
should check the logs to see WHY its timing out-
I have a PIII 550 384 ram- getting approx 2500 messages a day
My most recent discovery was SA hanging on huge attachments ( from
web-designers) , I'm currently TRYING to modify Exim to NOT send messages
over 500k to SA- as most spam is usually just a few k-
I too am running
SA
CLAM
EXIM-
Re: Spamassassin is useless
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:09:07PM +0100, jpff wrote:
> is a flurry of mail I get timeouts from spamd, and then errors about
> deleteing unallocated memory in spamassassin, and no mail is
If you're getting errors about dealing with memory, that's perl and not
SpamAssassin. FYI.
--
Randomly Selected Tagline:
Alimony - the screwing you get for the screwing you got.
Re: Spamassassin is useless
Posted by PakOgah <pa...@pala.bo-tak.info>.
jpff wrote:
> Much to my regret I am having to abandon use of spamassassin. If I
> include it in my mix (exin/spamassassin/clamav) then as soon it there
> is a flurry of mail I get timeouts from spamd, and then errors about
> deleteing unallocated memory in spamassassin, and no mail is
> delivered. This is very depressing as I have been using spamassassin
> with great success for a long time now, but recently it have become a
> liability
>
> This is exim 4.65/4.66/4.77 and SA 3.1.x for x in 1-8 on Debian sarge
> and etch
>
> So sad
> ==John ffitch
>
If you dont want SA why dont you try TDMA this is mailfiltering on
server side per emailaccount
so every user should verify which email they want to receive