Mailing List Archive: Please - some being missed?

Please - some being missed?

Feb 28, 2004, 5:12 AM

Post #1 of 4 (440 views)

I can't seem to get any help on this problem. I get email forwarded from
another off-site server. That server is apparently running SA. Some, but
not all, of these emails are not evaluated at all by my server's SA. I have
examples of some that get my SA's headers added to those from the other
server's SA, and also examples like the one below where it apparently wasn't
evaluated by my SA at all. This is driving me crazy - Why are some getting
through and not others? (Obviously the other server's SA has no knowledge
of MRWIGGLY etc! Thanks - John

Return-Path: <hydrolysis@partied-out.com>
X-Original-To: john@wa9als.com
Delivered-To: john@wa9als.com
Received: from 1umc.net (elisha.churchquest.com [207.44.194.116])
by wa9als.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 082E846FD
for <john@wa9als.com>; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 05:32:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from elisha.churchquest.com (root@localhost)
by 1umc.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1SAW4P00601
for <fleming.john@1umc.net>; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 04:32:04 -0600
X-ClientAddr: 212.53.109.91
Received: from shaggin-wagon.com ([212.53.109.91])
by elisha.churchquest.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i1SAUNi00554
for <fleming.john@1umc.net>; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 04:30:36 -0600
Received: from partied-out.com (mail3.netwinsite.com [216.65.3.238])
by brussel-sprouts.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADAC42BD03
for <fleming.john@1umc.net>; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 03:42:01 -0800
Message-ID: <101001c3fdef$f168f9e8$ec9391f3@partied-out.com>
From: "Vibes F. Typographically" <hydrolysis@partied-out.com>
To: Fleming <fleming.john@1umc.net>
Subject: Explore my favorite Super Viagr6a! :-) A harpy begrutch parises.
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 03:42:01 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_CCF5DE98.54F5E5BE"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1123
X-GMX-Antivirus: 0 (no virus found)
X-yoursite-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more
information
X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-yoursite-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=1.599,
required 6, BAYES_44 -0.00, HTML_MESSAGE 0.10,
RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 1.50)
X-yoursite-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
Status:

Re: Please - some being missed? [ In reply to ]

lwilton at earthlink

Feb 28, 2004, 7:01 AM

Post #2 of 4 (444 views)

Permalink

I've noticed here (where we have a very old and slow machine to run SA on)
that every now and then something will seemingly decide that SA isn't
keeping up, and will simply bypass the SA process on a message. I also see
this happen if I'm running SA manually on a test item to check out new
rules, and new mail arrives at the same time.

Loren

Re: Please - some being missed? [ In reply to ]

john at wa9als

Feb 28, 2004, 7:38 AM

Post #3 of 4 (445 views)

Permalink

----- Original Message -----
From: "Loren Wilton" <lwilton@earthlink.net>
To: <spamassassin-users@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Please - some being missed?

> I've noticed here (where we have a very old and slow machine to run SA on)
> that every now and then something will seemingly decide that SA isn't
> keeping up, and will simply bypass the SA process on a message. I also
see
> this happen if I'm running SA manually on a test item to check out new
> rules, and new mail arrives at the same time.
>
> Loren
>
OK, thanks - That must be it. I am using an old Gateway at this time -
P100, 48K RAM etc. This was setup with FC1 for testing - new server
expected next week! Actually, it works amazingly well, all things
considered! I love SA! - John

Re: Please - some being missed? [ In reply to ]

mailings02 at ttlexceeded

Feb 28, 2004, 10:52 AM

Post #4 of 4 (440 views)

Permalink

John Fleming wrote:

>I can't seem to get any help on this problem. I get email forwarded from
>another off-site server. That server is apparently running SA. Some, but
>not all, of these emails are not evaluated at all by my server's SA.
>
Loren's tip about a low system is likely to be it, but might it also be
caused by procmail rules you have that are based on SA headers? You
might try either removing the previous server's SA markup by feeding all
messags through spamassassin --remove-markup (since you don't seem to
trust it), or re-name the headers their server inserts using formail.

Unless it's an issue like that, I'd turn on verbose, debug and watch the
logs!

- Bob