Menu
▾
▴
assp-test — ASSP V2 development version Testing
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2007 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(400) |
Sep
(619) |
Oct
(540) |
Nov
(426) |
Dec
(204) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 |
Jan
(662) |
Feb
(332) |
Mar
(335) |
Apr
(284) |
May
(193) |
Jun
(201) |
Jul
(264) |
Aug
(283) |
Sep
(167) |
Oct
(193) |
Nov
(155) |
Dec
(298) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(336) |
Feb
(402) |
Mar
(788) |
Apr
(673) |
May
(227) |
Jun
(182) |
Jul
(337) |
Aug
(219) |
Sep
(490) |
Oct
(527) |
Nov
(385) |
Dec
(391) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(257) |
Feb
(188) |
Mar
(253) |
Apr
(190) |
May
(223) |
Jun
(171) |
Jul
(83) |
Aug
(158) |
Sep
(215) |
Oct
(221) |
Nov
(102) |
Dec
(159) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(245) |
Feb
(119) |
Mar
(167) |
Apr
(112) |
May
(158) |
Jun
(149) |
Jul
(164) |
Aug
(116) |
Sep
(109) |
Oct
(310) |
Nov
(288) |
Dec
(265) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(212) |
Feb
(187) |
Mar
(289) |
Apr
(229) |
May
(117) |
Jun
(70) |
Jul
(108) |
Aug
(212) |
Sep
(164) |
Oct
(90) |
Nov
(58) |
Dec
(69) |
| 2013 |
Jan
(85) |
Feb
(56) |
Mar
(115) |
Apr
(55) |
May
(82) |
Jun
(74) |
Jul
(86) |
Aug
(69) |
Sep
(97) |
Oct
(166) |
Nov
(58) |
Dec
(54) |
| 2014 |
Jan
(80) |
Feb
(69) |
Mar
(53) |
Apr
(76) |
May
(117) |
Jun
(51) |
Jul
(60) |
Aug
(30) |
Sep
(71) |
Oct
(46) |
Nov
(79) |
Dec
(99) |
| 2015 |
Jan
(37) |
Feb
(105) |
Mar
(79) |
Apr
(90) |
May
(220) |
Jun
(34) |
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(19) |
Sep
(68) |
Oct
(34) |
Nov
(42) |
Dec
(38) |
| 2016 |
Jan
(70) |
Feb
(85) |
Mar
(127) |
Apr
(75) |
May
(60) |
Jun
(46) |
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(47) |
Sep
(77) |
Oct
(159) |
Nov
(45) |
Dec
(35) |
| 2017 |
Jan
(35) |
Feb
(39) |
Mar
(13) |
Apr
(24) |
May
(60) |
Jun
(52) |
Jul
(42) |
Aug
(32) |
Sep
(59) |
Oct
(39) |
Nov
(17) |
Dec
(8) |
| 2018 |
Jan
(81) |
Feb
(13) |
Mar
(58) |
Apr
(75) |
May
(20) |
Jun
(21) |
Jul
(50) |
Aug
(11) |
Sep
(11) |
Oct
(22) |
Nov
(34) |
Dec
(42) |
| 2019 |
Jan
(55) |
Feb
(8) |
Mar
(13) |
Apr
(38) |
May
(15) |
Jun
(30) |
Jul
(6) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(34) |
Oct
(14) |
Nov
(14) |
Dec
(20) |
| 2020 |
Jan
(14) |
Feb
(29) |
Mar
(15) |
Apr
(7) |
May
(12) |
Jun
(18) |
Jul
(10) |
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(11) |
Oct
(12) |
Nov
(20) |
Dec
(2) |
| 2021 |
Jan
(4) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(7) |
Apr
(15) |
May
(8) |
Jun
(4) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(17) |
Oct
(71) |
Nov
(43) |
Dec
(7) |
| 2022 |
Jan
(11) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(12) |
Apr
|
May
(2) |
Jun
(14) |
Jul
(12) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(10) |
Oct
(14) |
Nov
(13) |
Dec
(2) |
| 2023 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
(10) |
Apr
(4) |
May
(3) |
Jun
|
Jul
(6) |
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(3) |
Oct
(2) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(2) |
| 2024 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Fritz B. <fb...@iw...> - 2008-01-25 09:30:39
|
Again: 1.3.6 is *not* the current version, not even in development. 1.3.6 is the future version, even in development. fritz |
|
From: Daniel K. Du V. <dd...@1p...> - 2008-01-25 04:47:23
|
I have a SMTP server that listens on a different port than port 25 and
forwards this mail to the ASSP application.
Looks something like this:
Non standard port(MTA) > ASSP listen port 25 > port 25 MTA >
Destination.=20
Maybe missing something in this but it has been working fine.=20
Notice tonight that the Non Standard port MTA is having difficulty
delivering some mail to assp for further processing.
Here is the error from the first MTA:
lost connection with 172.16.0.4[172.16.0.4] while sending message body
Here is the log of the connection on ASSP:
Jan-24-08 21:02:50 IP 172.16.0.8 (172.16) matches acceptAllMail
Jan-24-08 21:02:50 Connected: 172.16.0.8:44812 -> 172.16.0.4:25 ->
172.16.0.7:25
Jan-24-08 21:02:50 IP 172.16.0.8 (172.16) matches acceptAllMail
Jan-24-08 21:02:50 Connected: 172.16.0.8:44813 -> 172.16.0.4:25 ->
172.16.0.7:25
Jan-24-08 21:02:50 IP 172.16.0.8 (172.16) matches acceptAllMail
Jan-24-08 21:02:50 Connected: 172.16.0.8:44814 -> 172.16.0.4:25 ->
172.16.0.7:25
Jan-24-08 21:02:50 Info: queued first data for
172.16.0.7:25-172.16.0.4:52179
Jan-24-08 21:02:50 id-3770c304 172.16.0.8 <Jo...@me...> to:
aus...@ya... local or whitelisted (attachments unchecked)
Mercy_Teams_ -> ./notspam/Mercy_Teams_--41.eml
Jan-24-08 21:02:51 Info: queued first data for
172.16.0.7:25-172.16.0.4:52180
Jan-24-08 21:02:51 id-3770c230 172.16.0.8 <do...@tx...> to:
gle...@co... local or whitelisted (attachments unchecked)
One_Bad_West_Texas_Rabbit_ ->
./notspam/One_Bad_West_Texas_Rabbit_--42.eml
Jan-24-08 21:02:52 id-3770c304 172.16.0.8 <Jo...@me...> to:
aus...@ya... ClamAV: scanning local 98933 bytes done - OK
Jan-24-08 21:02:53 Info: queued first data for
172.16.0.7:25-172.16.0.4:52181
Jan-24-08 21:02:53 id-3770c394 172.16.0.8 <do...@tx...> to:
jon...@co... local or whitelisted (attachments unchecked)
One_Bad_West_Texas_Rabbit_ ->
./notspam/One_Bad_West_Texas_Rabbit_--43.eml
Jan-24-08 21:02:53 id-3770c230 172.16.0.8 <do...@tx...> to:
gle...@co... ClamAV: scanning local 98292 bytes done - OK
Jan-24-08 21:02:59 id-3770c394 172.16.0.8 <do...@tx...> to:
jon...@co... ClamAV: scanning local 98454 bytes done - OK
Jan-24-08 21:03:13 Connected: 58.10.102.246:20946 -> 172.16.0.4:25 ->
172.16.0.7:25
Jan-24-08 21:03:17 id-3797c298 58.10.102.246
<cot...@me...> Message-Score: total for this message
is 10, added 10 for Suspicious HELO - contains IP('58.10.102.246'):
'ppp-58-10-102-246.revip2.asianet.co.th'
Jan-24-08 21:03:20 id-3797c298 58.10.102.246
<cot...@me...> adding new triplet:
(58.10.102.0,cot...@me...,barrettbryan.barrett@quadtr
ax.com)
Jan-24-08 21:03:20 id-3797c298 58.10.102.246
<cot...@me...> recipient delayed:
bar...@qu...
Jan-24-08 21:03:21 Disconnected: 58.10.102.246
Jan-24-08 21:03:27 Connected: 58.10.102.246:21089 -> 172.16.0.4:25 ->
172.16.0.7:25
Jan-24-08 21:03:33 id-3813c151 58.10.102.246
<who...@sn...> Message-Score: total for this
message is 10, added 10 for Suspicious HELO - contains
IP('58.10.102.246'): 'ppp-58-10-102-246.revip2.asianet.co.th'
Jan-24-08 21:03:37 id-3813c151 58.10.102.246
<who...@sn...> adding new triplet:
(58.10.102.0,who...@sn...,barrettbryan.barrett@q
uadtrax.com)
Jan-24-08 21:03:37 id-3813c151 58.10.102.246
<who...@sn...> recipient delayed:
bar...@qu...
Jan-24-08 21:03:38 Disconnected: 58.10.102.246
Jan-24-08 21:03:41 Connected: 58.10.102.246:21218 -> 172.16.0.4:25 ->
172.16.0.7:25
Jan-24-08 21:03:47 id-3827c7 58.10.102.246 <sax...@su...>
Message-Score: total for this message is 10, added 10 for Suspicious
HELO - contains IP('58.10.102.246'):
'ppp-58-10-102-246.revip2.asianet.co.th'
Jan-24-08 21:03:50 id-3827c7 58.10.102.246 <sax...@su...>
adding new triplet:
(58.10.102.0,sax...@su...,barrettbryan.barrett@quadtrax.c
om)
Jan-24-08 21:03:50 id-3827c7 58.10.102.246 <sax...@su...>
recipient delayed: bar...@qu...
Jan-24-08 21:03:52 Disconnected: 58.10.102.246
Jan-24-08 21:07:54 Disconnected: 172.16.0.8
There may be more in the log than need but am hoping that it can help.
Have I done something to break this or it is something that has change
in the current version of ASSP?
Daniel Du Vall
|
|
From: Kevin <ass...@la...> - 2008-01-24 23:56:22
|
Craig Schmitt wrote: >> After doing that and getting Mail::SPF v2.005 installed using "ppm >> install -force", restarting ASSP 1.3.5 (12.10) then says "Mail::SPF not >> installed". > > Not sure what the cause of that is. That did happen to me on one system so I > removed the package and then installed it a second time and that did it. You should remove the currently installed Mail::SPF then install it from the new repository. Doing a -force install can sometimes lead to odd problems like that. Kevin |
|
From: Micheal E. Jr <mi...@es...> - 2008-01-24 22:58:13
|
Fritz, et all: I just wrote a wiki article for the description of the Bayesian=20 normality and its diagnostic use as a value (based on mail list and=20 forum messages). Could you guys take a look at it and make sure that I=20 captured this info properly? It's a short article. Thanks! http://www.asspsmtp.org/wiki/Bayesian_normality If it meets approval, the next step will be a wiki article detailing the = proper steps for correcting a Bayesian normality skew. Anyone wanting=20 to jump on this bandwagon are most welcome. |
|
From: Craig S. <ASSPtester@CMShome.net> - 2008-01-24 19:55:29
|
> After doing that and getting Mail::SPF v2.005 installed using "ppm > install -force", restarting ASSP 1.3.5 (12.10) then says "Mail::SPF not > installed". Not sure what the cause of that is. That did happen to me on one system so I removed the package and then installed it a second time and that did it. |
|
From: Pascal D. <pa...@dr...> - 2008-01-24 19:33:05
|
Paul Hodges schreef: > --On 24 January 2008 10:24 -0600 Craig Schmitt <ASSPtester@CMShome.net> > wrote: > > > After doing that and getting Mail::SPF v2.005 installed using "ppm > install -force", restarting ASSP 1.3.5 (12.10) then says "Mail::SPF not > installed". > Same here ! |
|
From: Steve T. <st...@sw...> - 2008-01-24 18:36:35
|
> Yes something was done. thanks for clarifying. Keep up the good work! |
|
From: Fritz B. <fb...@iw...> - 2008-01-24 18:09:04
|
> >My server receives more ham than spam so my norm is always below the >recommended .5 to 1.5. Right now, I am sitting at .45 and that is >with >having 5990 spam messages and 6820 ham messages. I just deleted 2100 >ham >messages (oldest messages) because the norm was at .31 and I need to >get it >up. > >I know that the option is gone in the collection section, but was >something >else done to maintain the relationship of spam vs. ham? Yes something was done. in your case maxfile would temporarely be set to 6820 so that spam could catch up. But this is nothing dramatic. In general maxfile is always set to the highest value of spam or ham. And yes I took it out of the GUI to restore the responsibility of the admin. fritz |
|
From: Paul H. <pw...@ca...> - 2008-01-24 16:58:16
|
--On 24 January 2008 10:24 -0600 Craig Schmitt <ASSPtester@CMShome.net> wrote: > Please add http://trouchelle.com/ppm/package.xml to the PPM package > repository. (Edit -> Preferences -> Repositories) > > It's available there. After doing that and getting Mail::SPF v2.005 installed using "ppm install -force", restarting ASSP 1.3.5 (12.10) then says "Mail::SPF not installed". Paul -- Paul Hodges |
|
From: Craig S. <ASSPtester@CMShome.net> - 2008-01-24 16:47:42
|
> Correct. I installed v2.005 and no longer see the error I originally
> posted
Looks like we need to test for the specific version of Mail::SPF that's
available:
if ($CanUseSPF2) {
$ver = eval('Mail::SPF->VERSION');
$ver =~ s/^v//gi; # strip leading 'v'
$VerMailSPF2 = $ver;
$ver = " version $ver" if $ver;
if ( $VerMailSPF2 >= 2.001 ) {
mlog( 0, "Mail::SPF module$ver installed and available" );
} else {
mlog( 0, "Mail::SPF module$ver installed but must be >= 2.001" );
mlog( 0, "Mail::SPF will not be used." );
$CanUseSPF2 = 0;
}
} elsif ($AvailSPF2) {
$ver = eval('Mail::SPF->VERSION');
$ver =~ s/^v//gi; # strip leading 'v'
$ver = " version $ver" if $ver;
mlog( 0, "Mail::SPF module$ver installed but Net::DNS required" );
} else {
mlog( 0, "Mail::SPF module not installed" ) if $ValidateSPF;
}
|
|
From: Steve T. <st...@sw...> - 2008-01-24 16:40:37
|
C:\Documents and Settings\Steve Thompson>perl c:\assp\assp.pl
Scalar found where operator expected at c:\assp\assp.pl line 4910, near ")
$SPF2"
(Missing operator before $SPF2?)
syntax error at c:\assp\assp.pl line 4910, near ")
$SPF2"
BEGIN not safe after errors--compilation aborted at c:\assp\assp.pl line
8633.
|
|
From: Micheal E. Jr <mi...@es...> - 2008-01-24 16:32:42
|
Craig Schmitt wrote: > Please add http://trouchelle.com/ppm/package.xml to the PPM package=20 > repository. (Edit -> Preferences -> Repositories) Or from the command line: ppm repo add http://trouchelle.com/ppm/ "Serguei Trouchelle" More info: http://trouchelle.com/perl/ppmrepview.pl |
|
From: Craig S. <ASSPtester@CMShome.net> - 2008-01-24 16:24:32
|
> > Unfortunately that version is not yet available in the Activestate > repository > Please add http://trouchelle.com/ppm/package.xml to the PPM package repository. (Edit -> Preferences -> Repositories) It's available there. |
|
From: Wim B. <wim...@gm...> - 2008-01-24 16:15:47
|
On 24/01/2008, Craig Schmitt <ASS...@cm...> wrote: > Please install Mail::SPF version v2.005 and that should clear it up. Unfortunately that version is not yet available in the Activestate repository |
|
From: Steve T. <st...@sw...> - 2008-01-24 16:13:55
|
Does ASSP not do this anymore? Was it taken out? My server receives more ham than spam so my norm is always below the recommended .5 to 1.5. Right now, I am sitting at .45 and that is with having 5990 spam messages and 6820 ham messages. I just deleted 2100 ham messages (oldest messages) because the norm was at .31 and I need to get it up. I know that the option is gone in the collection section, but was something else done to maintain the relationship of spam vs. ham? |
|
From: Micheal E. Jr <mi...@es...> - 2008-01-24 16:08:01
|
Kevin wrote: > Because: > 1) Not everyone runs the rebuild script on a daily basis, or even at al= l. > 2) Most people who do run the script use older versions of it. > 3) It's fine where it is. Fair enough - but I have a final thought on this: Given the different issues with single threading, updates, maintenance,=20 etc - would it be feasible to wrap all maintenance-type tasks into a=20 "maintenance" script? Scrap the rebuild script, and wrap that into it=20 too. Let assp.pl be more streamlined in what it needs to do, and leave=20 the rest to the "maintenance" script that can run in its own thread, etc.= Heck, this could be a way to have a starting point for eventually=20 porting out the web interface as well, taking more load off the assp.pl=20 process. Just ideas. |
|
From: Steve T. <st...@sw...> - 2008-01-24 15:49:22
|
> > Please install Mail::SPF version v2.005 and that should clear it up. > Correct. I installed v2.005 and no longer see the error I originally posted |
|
From: Craig S. <ASSPtester@CMShome.net> - 2008-01-24 15:45:08
|
Wim Borghs wrote: >> >> SPF2OK: No Sender in Request at C:/Perl/site/lib/Mail/SPF/Request.pm >> line 16. >> > > I have the same problem. It happens for every SPF2-check being performed. > Disabling SPF2 and thus using the original spf-implementation does work. This is an indication that Mail::SPF module version 2.000 is installed on the system, which has a different method signature on the Request object (Ip, Sender) than the 2.005 version we coded to (ip_address, identity). Please install Mail::SPF version v2.005 and that should clear it up. Regards, Craig |
|
From: Wim B. <wim...@gm...> - 2008-01-24 15:33:40
|
Steve Thompson-10 wrote: > > Maybe a dumb question, but what does this mean from my log file? > > SPF2OK: No Sender in Request at C:/Perl/site/lib/Mail/SPF/Request.pm > line 16. > I have the same problem. It happens for every SPF2-check being performed. Disabling SPF2 and thus using the original spf-implementation does work. (Note: "Module Call Timeout Exception Logging" needs to be enabled to see this error) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/SPF-2-tp15020700p15066288.html Sent from the assp-test mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
|
From: Paul H. <du...@sh...> - 2008-01-24 14:17:35
|
When ever I stop the ASSPSMTP service in Windows I get the following; main exception: Undefined subroutine &main::saveWhitelist called at (eval 2659) line 15. 1.3.5 (12.14) |
|
From: Craig S. <ASSPtester@CMShome.net> - 2008-01-24 13:50:40
|
Kevin wrote:
> The griplist is around 2mb right now so if you have a slow connection it
> might just take a while to download.
Some errors last night, but it eventually downloaded. My connection is fast
enough (15Mb/sec)
Jan-23-2008 22:57:29.106 Downloading Griplist via direct connection
Jan-23-2008 23:00:50.757 Griplist download failed: 500 Internal Server Error
Jan-23-2008 21:57:06.081 Downloading Griplist via direct connection
Jan-23-2008 21:57:28.831 Griplist download failed: 500 Internal Server Error
Jan-24-2008 00:00:52.134 Downloading Griplist via direct connection
Jan-24-2008 00:00:55.587 Griplist download complete
Once suggestion I would make is to decrease the download timeout as the
default for LWP::UserAgent is 180 seconds, far too long IMHO. That might
explain the long delays some are experiencing.
Something like:
# call LWP mirror command
$ua->timeout(15);
$rc = mirror( $gripListUrl, $gripFile );
|
|
From: JP v. M. <jp...@ds...> - 2008-01-24 13:32:00
|
>I think it's something to do with Fritz's server caching things. >Just try again in a few hours normally fixes things I find. >James. That's 2 version further ;-) |
|
From: James B. <jl...@bo...> - 2008-01-24 13:04:42
|
On 24/01/2008, at 11:59 PM, JP van Melis wrote: > Hi Fritz, > > Because I upgrade my ASSP almost every new version and run a compare > on it > (great program Examdiff), I often notice that it's the same version I > already have. > The first thing I do, of course, is check if it's a caching problem. > I delete the cache, but I always get the same version. > > This time and several times before, I even ran a "wget > http://www.magicvillage.de/~Fritz_Borgstedt/0001B38B-8000001C/S05F324B2.9/as > sp.pl" straight from my Linux system (normally I download it from a > Windows > client) but I'm getting the same version anyhow. > > Please don't be offended, but I never get a reaction when I post > here that > the version is the same and when I try it a bit later it's corrected. I think it's something to do with Fritz's server caching things. Just try again in a few hours normally fixes things I find. James. |
|
From: JP v. M. <jp...@ds...> - 2008-01-24 12:59:30
|
Hi Fritz, Because I upgrade my ASSP almost every new version and run a compare on it (great program Examdiff), I often notice that it's the same version I already have. The first thing I do, of course, is check if it's a caching problem. I delete the cache, but I always get the same version. This time and several times before, I even ran a "wget http://www.magicvillage.de/~Fritz_Borgstedt/0001B38B-8000001C/S05F324B2.9/as sp.pl" straight from my Linux system (normally I download it from a Windows client) but I'm getting the same version anyhow. Please don't be offended, but I never get a reaction when I post here that the version is the same and when I try it a bit later it's corrected. JP |
|
From: James B. <jl...@bo...> - 2008-01-24 12:24:38
|
On 24/01/2008, at 10:58 PM, Craig Schmitt wrote: >> James Brown wrote: >>> >>> Had a look at the log and saw a whole email there: >>> >>> Jan-21-08 11:49:57 id-6597c9783 203.47.56.162 >>> <acc...@st...> to: pos...@bo... Red >>> Regex:Content-Type: multipart/mixed; >> >> >> What is RegExLength set to? >> > > Never mind RegExLength, the problem has been fixed in a version > after 12.2. > Try 12.14. RegExLength is set to 55. Great. I'll try 12.14. Thanks, James. |
196 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.