James Gray | 24 Jun 01:29 2008
Picon

Re: batch processing tmes

On 24/06/2008, at 6:34 AM, Dave Filchak wrote:
> We are only using zen.spamhaus.org. Should I be using something else?
>
> Dave

Hi Dave,

I've seen times when the MailScanner child is old and hasn't been  
killed off and restarted.  Then a new batch arrives, and the  
MailScanner parent kills the child, starts a new one, then commences  
processing the batch.  However the child rebirth is included in the  
processing time.  Julian might be able to shed more light on the  
automagic MS child restart logic, but this seems to explain the  
fluctuating times.

Additionally, any time a message by-passes spamassassin (or hits the  
SA cache in MailScanner), my batch processing times are very short.   
I've tweaked the heck out of SpamAssassin, but at the end of the day,  
there's only so much you can expect from a 3GHz P4 :P

HTH,

James
Attachment (smime.p7s): application/pkcs7-signature, 3267 bytes
--

-- 
MailScanner mailing list
mailscanner <at> lists.mailscanner.info
http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner

(Continue reading)

Chris Barber | 24 Jun 02:24 2008
Picon

RE: RE: batch processing tmes

I think he was referring to having your MTA handle the RBL lookups and
turn RBL Lookups off in both Spamassassin and MailScanner. This reduces
system load in a few different ways. 

Also, here are some tips on getting better performance:
http://wiki.mailscanner.info/doku.php?id=maq:index#optimization_tips

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: mailscanner-bounces <at> lists.mailscanner.info
[mailto:mailscanner-bounces <at> lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Dave
Filchak
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 4:34 PM
To: MailScanner discussion
Subject: Re: RE: batch processing tmes

Martin,

We are only using zen.spamhaus.org. Should I be using something else?

Dave

Martin.Hepworth wrote:
> Dave
>
> Look at what scores you are getting for the 1-3 seconds runs. I
suggesrt you'll find they are using MailScanner's spamassassin cache.
>
> For the longer messages I suggest they are doing a lot of RBL lookups.
(Continue reading)

Drew Marshall | 24 Jun 08:31 2008
Picon

Re: batch processing tmes


On 23 Jun 2008, at 21:34, Dave Filchak wrote:

> Martin,
>
> We are only using zen.spamhaus.org. Should I be using something else?

But where are you using just the zen list? If it's at your MTA, well  
that's fine and will have taken some load off MS but SA does many,  
many (I haven't been excited enough to count them all!) RBL, SURBL etc  
look ups by default along with razor & pyzor tests. Any one of these  
could be slow or just you have a slow DNS server. As was once said,  
any caching DNS server running on a SpamAssassin box is a busy caching  
server. Check the wiki (As mentioned already) for other ideas and run  
a few batches in debug to see where the delay is but to be honest 30  
seconds really is not too bad, I can not believe any one notices  
anything other than a reduced level of spam?

Drew

--
In line with our policy, this message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous 
content by Technology Tiger's Mail Launder system <www.mail-launder.com>
Our email policy can be found at www.technologytiger.net/policy

Technology Tiger Limited is registered in Scotland with registration number: 310997
Registered Office 55-57 West High Street Inverurie AB51 3QQ

--

-- 
MailScanner mailing list
(Continue reading)

Martin.Hepworth | 24 Jun 10:44 2008

RE: RE: batch processing tmes

Dave

Depends on how many queries you are pushing to zen and whether or not you are paying for this service.

http://www.spamhaus.org/organization/dnsblusage.html

If you go above their limit they serve    your    queries   slowly.

--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailscanner-bounces <at> lists.mailscanner.info
> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces <at> lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf
> Of Dave Filchak
> Sent: 23 June 2008 21:34
> To: MailScanner discussion
> Subject: Re: RE: batch processing tmes
>
> Martin,
>
> We are only using zen.spamhaus.org. Should I be using something else?
>
> Dave
>
> Martin.Hepworth wrote:
> > Dave
(Continue reading)

Marc Lucke | 24 Jun 13:51 2008

Re: use_bayes not working

Thanks Henry,

The problem is that I don't get BAYES_ anything in the header of email 
that MailScanner processes, not that spamassassin is not using bayes.

Marc

Henry Kwan wrote:
> Marc Lucke <marc <at> marcsnet.com> writes:
>
>   
>> In the above, I used to get a "BAYES_<something> <something>" score adding
>> to the total.  E.g. BAYES_99 5.00
>>
>> No matter what I do, I can't get it anymore.  It is driving me around the
>> bend!
>>
>> What do I need to do to re-enable this?!
>> [...]
>> tests=BAYES_40,MISSING_DATE,MISSING_HEADERS,MISSING_SUBJECT,NO_RECEIVED,NO_R
>> ELAYS
>>     
>
> Hi,
>
> >From that output, it seems like bayes is working since BAYES_40 was triggered. 
> Try feeding SA a more spammy message to see if BAYES_99 gets triggered.
>
>
>
(Continue reading)

Julian Field | 24 Jun 14:45 2008
Picon

Re: HTML images are being removed FIXED - PATCH

I have already produced a fix for this problem, and am waiting for 
anyone on the mailscanner-beta list to try it out.
If you mangle the URLs on the website to download 4.70.7-1 you will find 
the fix is there. I just didn't want to publish it until someone had 
agreed it fixed it.
But my testers all seem to be on holiday :(

Cheers,
Jules.

Richard Frovarp wrote:
> Richard Frovarp wrote:
>> Richard Frovarp wrote:
>>> I'm having a problem where the img tag in HTML messages is being 
>>> removed. I'm using clamd 0.92.1, SA 3.2.5, and MS 4.70-6.1. What is 
>>> interesting is they aren't being replaced with anything, they're 
>>> just being completely removed.
>>>
>>> I do have this set in MS, plus I would expect it to replace, not 
>>> remove:
>>> Allow WebBugs = yes
>>>
>>> Anyone have any ideas? I did switch to clamd from clamavmodule, so 
>>> that may have something to do with it.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Richard
>> Okay, it's not clamd. I turned it off and I have the same problem. SA 
>> shouldn't mess with, well anything. So it would appear that something 
>> changed in MS between 4.61.7 and 4.70.6. I've got a diff between what 
(Continue reading)

Dave Filchak | 24 Jun 15:25 2008
Picon

Re: batch processing tmes

Thanks all for your responses. I will look into this further. I used to 
manage my email servers a couple of years ago and then had someone else 
doing it. So, I am just trying to get up to speed again.

Cheers all.

Dave

Dave Filchak wrote:
> <div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed">OK .. I 
> think I have my configuration straightened out and am not seeing 
> errors in spamassassin -d --lint or sa-update -D. However, what I am 
> seeing is batch processing times all over the map ... sometimes 1 - 3 
> seconds and then often times up as high as 25 -30 seconds. Can anyone 
> shed some light as to what might be causing these long processing 
> times. These are happening with batches of only two or three messages.
>
> Again, here is my configuration:
>
> This is CentOS release 4.1 (Final)
> This is Perl version 5.008005 (5.8.5)
>
> This is MailScanner version 4.70.6
<snip>
--

-- 
MailScanner mailing list
mailscanner <at> lists.mailscanner.info
http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner

Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
(Continue reading)

Hugo van der Kooij | 24 Jun 15:32 2008

Re: HTML images are being removed FIXED - PATCH


Julian Field wrote:
| I have already produced a fix for this problem, and am waiting for
| anyone on the mailscanner-beta list to try it out.
| If you mangle the URLs on the website to download 4.70.7-1 you will find
| the fix is there. I just didn't want to publish it until someone had
| agreed it fixed it.
| But my testers all seem to be on holiday :(

Everyone has a hard time keeping up with you when you are working below
your average capacity allready. So if you feel better we simply lag behind.

If this gets any worse after succesful surgery you might be so ahaead of
the game the rest of us do not even know where the match is anyway.

Hugo.

--
hvdkooij <at> vanderkooij.org               http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/
PGP/GPG? Use: http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/0x58F19981.asc

	A: Yes.
	>Q: Are you sure?
	>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
	>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Bored? Click on http://spamornot.org/ and rate those images.

Ian | 24 Jun 15:39 2008
Picon

Re: use_bayes not working

On 24 Jun 2008 at 7:51, Marc Lucke wrote:

> Thanks Henry,
> 
> The problem is that I don't get BAYES_ anything in the header of email 
> that MailScanner processes, not that spamassassin is not using bayes.
> 
> 
> Marc

Hi,

Try a lint using the spamassassin config file the MailScanner uses.  On my system that is 
/etc/MailScanner/spam.assassin.prefs.conf, ie:

	spamassassin -D -p /etc/MailScanner/spam.assassin.prefs.conf --lint

I usually pipe the STDERR to a file so I can read it properly:

	spamassassin -D -p /etc/MailScanner/spam.assassin.prefs.conf --lint 2> lint.txt

It may be that the standard spamassasin has bayes turned on, but it somehow got turned 
off in MailScanner.

Regards

Ian
-- 
--

-- 
MailScanner mailing list
(Continue reading)

Richard Frovarp | 24 Jun 15:54 2008
Picon

Re: HTML images are being removed FIXED - PATCH

Julian Field wrote:
> I have already produced a fix for this problem, and am waiting for 
> anyone on the mailscanner-beta list to try it out.
> If you mangle the URLs on the website to download 4.70.7-1 you will 
> find the fix is there. I just didn't want to publish it until someone 
> had agreed it fixed it.
> But my testers all seem to be on holiday :(
>
> Cheers,
> Jules.

Thanks. Got it installed and it did fix the problem.

Richard
--

-- 
MailScanner mailing list
mailscanner <at> lists.mailscanner.info
http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner

Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website! 


Gmane