attachments block
Khaled Hussein
khaled.jamil at gmail.com
Wed Apr 29 06:43:01 IST 2009
The recipient address
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:04 PM, <mailscanner-request at lists.mailscanner.info
> wrote:
> Send MailScanner mailing list submissions to
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> mailscanner-request at lists.mailscanner.info
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> mailscanner-owner at lists.mailscanner.info
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of MailScanner digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: OT: Bounced Email (Mark Sapiro)
> 2. attachments block (Khaled Hussein)
> 3. Re: attachments block (Julian Field)
> 4. Slooow MailScanner = bitdefender?? (Nigel Kendrick)
> 5. Re: Maximum Processing Attempts (Kai Schaetzl)
> 6. Re: OT: Bounced Email (Kai Schaetzl)
> 7. Re: Preventing multple signatures in email conversation?
> (Kai Schaetzl)
> 8. Re: Maximum Processing Attempts (Matt)
> 9. Re: Maximum Processing Attempts (David Lee)
> 10. Re: Maximum Processing Attempts (Julian Field)
> 11. 4.76.22 (Julian Field)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:07:32 -0700
> From: Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net>
> Subject: Re: OT: Bounced Email
> To: MailScanner discussion <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
> Message-ID: <20090427230732.GA3304 at msapiro>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:02:56PM +0100, Drew Marshall wrote:
> > On 27 Apr 2009, at 16:44, Johnny Stork wrote:
> >
> > >Hmm, ok, but what about these occaisional "probes" I get from a
> > >couple lists?
> > >
> > >Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
> > >users at spamassassin.apache.org mailing list.
> > >
> > >
> > >Messages to you from the users mailing list seem to
> > >have been bouncing. I sent you a warning message, but it bounced.
> > >I've attached a copy of the bounce message.
> >
> > Almost certainly generated because your address generated some form of
> > 4xx error message that was returned to the list server. Do you have
> > grey listing or some form of recipient checking going on? Either of
> > these could cause this sort of probe.
>
>
> Again, I don't know about ezmlm, but bounces with 4xx status to a
> Mailman list are ignored.
>
> --
> Mark Sapiro mark at msapiro net The highway is for gamblers,
> San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:21:07 +0300
> From: Khaled Hussein <khaled.jamil at gmail.com>
> Subject: attachments block
> To: mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> Message-ID:
> <819715630904272321uc267b11m3efe2200d31b89dc at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi All,
>
> i added a rule in my filename.rulse.conf file to deny attachments start
> with
> DSL (all of them viagra pics), it works fine but i want to prevent
> mailscanner from sending the report to the email address that this file has
> been blocked, how can i do this or if ther is another way to block these
> messages
>
>
> Thanks
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20090428/f6a9d697/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:29:45 +0100
> From: Julian Field <MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: attachments block
> To: MailScanner discussion <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
> Message-ID:
> <EMEW3|a43f45235357bfbb5ee0809627107a3cl3R8Ys0bMailScanner|
> ecs.soton.ac.uk|040500 at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
>
> On 28/04/2009 07:21, Khaled Hussein wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > i added a rule in my filename.rulse.conf file to deny attachments
> > start with DSL (all of them viagra pics), it works fine but i want to
> > prevent mailscanner from sending the report to the email address
> Which email address? The sender or the recipient?
> > that this file has been blocked, how can i do this or if ther is
> > another way to block these messages
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>
> Jules
>
> --
> Julian Field MEng CITP CEng
> www.MailScanner.info
> Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store
>
> MailScanner customisation, or any advanced system administration help?
> Contact me at Jules at Jules.FM
>
> PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
> PGP public key: http://www.jules.fm/julesfm.asc
> Follow me at twitter.com/JulesFM
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:27:20 +0100
> From: "Nigel Kendrick" <support-lists at petdoctors.co.uk>
> Subject: Slooow MailScanner = bitdefender??
> To: "'MailScanner discussion'" <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
> Message-ID: <4D373C90AFA24050BDABCAC9CDD9A525 at SUPPORT01V>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Morning,
>
> I have a P4 3GHz server running MailScanner 4.75.11 that has has been
> working fine, but over the last few days it has taken to slowing down
> dramatically and the CPU load hits 13+
>
> Admittedly the server could do with a bit more RAM (it has 768MB), but it
> has worked fine for several years and the load is very small (<300 emails a
> day).
>
> A quick look at htop shows that the bitdefender update process seems to run
> 'forever' and eats up >500MB and then the server goes into swap city and
> almost grinds to a halt.
>
> The upgrade from 4.69.? happened around the same time as the slow down so
> has something changed that might have caused this? I guess something may
> have just tipped the server over a critical RAM requirement so I am going
> to
> fit some more (1.5GB) but any other thoughts appreciated as other servers
> upgraded at the same time (fitted with more RAM) have not experienced the
> slow down.
>
> Thanks
>
> Nigel Kendrick
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20090428/370a2596/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:31:19 +0200
> From: Kai Schaetzl <maillists at conactive.com>
> Subject: Re: Maximum Processing Attempts
> To: mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> Message-ID: <VA.000037e4.008a2125 at news.conactive.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Julian Field wrote on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:40:16 +0100:
>
> > Should I leave it switched on by default, so heavily loaded sites can
> > switch it off to gain that extra bit of performance, at the cost of a
> > potential reliability hit?
>
> >From the past discussion I think it is mainly those heavy-traffic sites
> that would benefit from it. I think we had exactly two folks mentioning a
> problem with occasional messages getting not processed somehow. Both with
> high-volume sites. So, the majority does not need this feature to be on.
> On the other hand, exactly those people who need it will also be hit most
> by the performance hit (as small as it may be).
> Unfortunately none of them participated in the recent discussion.
>
> Kai
>
> --
> Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
> Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:31:19 +0200
> From: Kai Schaetzl <maillists at conactive.com>
> Subject: Re: OT: Bounced Email
> To: mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> Message-ID: <VA.000037e3.008a2125 at news.conactive.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Drew Marshall wrote on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:57:35 +0100:
>
> > This one should be fine
>
> Yes, it's back to normal now.
>
> Kai
>
> --
> Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
> Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:31:18 +0200
> From: Kai Schaetzl <maillists at conactive.com>
> Subject: Re: Preventing multple signatures in email conversation?
> To: mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> Message-ID: <VA.000037e2.008a2115 at news.conactive.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Kevin Miller wrote on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:37:00 -0800:
>
> > Yes - change the above "dash dash" to "dash dash space".
>
> look again. The separator is correct. It's a QP message.
>
> Kai
>
> --
> Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
> Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:03:49 +0100
> From: Matt <spamlists at coders.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Maximum Processing Attempts
> To: MailScanner discussion <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
> Message-ID: <49F6D485.2020501 at coders.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> > >From the past discussion I think it is mainly those heavy-traffic sites
> > that would benefit from it. I think we had exactly two folks mentioning a
> > problem with occasional messages getting not processed somehow. Both with
> > high-volume sites. So, the majority does not need this feature to be on.
> > On the other hand, exactly those people who need it will also be hit most
> > by the performance hit (as small as it may be).
> >
> > Unfortunately none of them participated in the recent discussion.
> >
>
> I run a high volume service and up until recently I have had nothing to
> add as we have have only been affected by this issue once. However, in
> the last couple of weeks we have had this happen to two of servers.
> Within in 20 minutes the queues had grown to unexceptable levels and the
> LA on the box jumped hugely. It took me over an hour to track down
> which message caused the issue (as an aside - adding the message back in
> to the processing queue about an hour later and it went through fine!).
>
> I for one would have accepted the the tiny hit a few SQLite queries per
> message would have caused had the code been avalible then. I hope to
> have the code in production by the end of the week
>
>
> matt
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:06:33 +0100 (BST)
> From: David Lee <t.d.lee at durham.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: Maximum Processing Attempts
> To: MailScanner discussion <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
> Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904281049160.4895 at claus.dur.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>
> > Julian Field wrote on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:40:16 +0100:
> >
> >> Should I leave it switched on by default, so heavily loaded sites can
> >> switch it off to gain that extra bit of performance, at the cost of a
> >> potential reliability hit?
> >
> >> From the past discussion I think it is mainly those heavy-traffic sites
> > that would benefit from it. I think we had exactly two folks mentioning a
> > problem with occasional messages getting not processed somehow. Both with
> > high-volume sites. So, the majority does not need this feature to be on.
> > On the other hand, exactly those people who need it will also be hit most
> > by the performance hit (as small as it may be).
> > Unfortunately none of them participated in the recent discussion.
>
> Kai, the feature isn't primarily about "occasional messages getting not
> processed somehow". Rather it is about the severe knock-on effects that
> can have.
>
> (Reminder: If there is some characteristic with a number of emails that
> causes perl/MS to crash, then that causes the whole "batch", including
> many innocent emails, not to get processed. Subsequent runs keep tripping
> over the same thing. If there are a few more such rogue emails than there
> are MS children, then almost all the innocent email gets held up
> indefinitely. Such rogue emails are typically spam, and so there tend to
> be many instances of it. Yes, the problem is rare. But when it hits, it
> can be very severe: all email blocked; massive inbound queue build-up;
> load average through the roof.)
>
> We've been running it in production ever since Julian first put it into a
> beta. (I was honour-bound to do so; I had suggested it!) I haven't
> noticed a performance impact.
>
>
> My vote is to leave it on.
>
> Email sys.admins have varying ability. When this problem hits, even
> experienced sys.admins struggle. (Been there; more than once.) The less
> experienced would struggle even more. The default of this option should
> be biased in favour of the inexperienced sys.admin. So the default (I
> suggest) should be "on". (A sys.admin. who is experienced enough to know
> they don't need it is, by definition, experienced enough to find their way
> to switching it off.)
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> --
>
> : David Lee I.T. Service :
> : Senior Systems Programmer Computer Centre :
> : UNIX Team Leader Durham University :
> : South Road :
> : http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/ Durham DH1 3LE :
> : Phone: +44 191 334 2752 U.K. :
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:52:26 +0100
> From: Julian Field <MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: Maximum Processing Attempts
> To: MailScanner discussion <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
> Message-ID:
> <EMEW3|5c1aa48b84f5385eaf6d82f42124e8dal3RBqm0bMailScanner|
> ecs.soton.ac.uk|000808 at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
>
> On 28/04/2009 11:06, David Lee wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> >
> >> Julian Field wrote on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:40:16 +0100:
> >>
> >>> Should I leave it switched on by default, so heavily loaded sites can
> >>> switch it off to gain that extra bit of performance, at the cost of a
> >>> potential reliability hit?
> >>
> >>> From the past discussion I think it is mainly those heavy-traffic sites
> >> that would benefit from it. I think we had exactly two folks
> >> mentioning a
> >> problem with occasional messages getting not processed somehow. Both
> >> with
> >> high-volume sites. So, the majority does not need this feature to be on.
> >> On the other hand, exactly those people who need it will also be hit
> >> most
> >> by the performance hit (as small as it may be).
> >> Unfortunately none of them participated in the recent discussion.
> >
> > Kai, the feature isn't primarily about "occasional messages getting
> > not processed somehow". Rather it is about the severe knock-on
> > effects that can have.
> >
> > (Reminder: If there is some characteristic with a number of emails
> > that causes perl/MS to crash, then that causes the whole "batch",
> > including many innocent emails, not to get processed. Subsequent runs
> > keep tripping over the same thing. If there are a few more such rogue
> > emails than there are MS children, then almost all the innocent email
> > gets held up indefinitely. Such rogue emails are typically spam, and
> > so there tend to be many instances of it. Yes, the problem is rare.
> > But when it hits, it can be very severe: all email blocked; massive
> > inbound queue build-up; load average through the roof.)
> >
> > We've been running it in production ever since Julian first put it
> > into a beta. (I was honour-bound to do so; I had suggested it!) I
> > haven't noticed a performance impact.
> >
> >
> > My vote is to leave it on.
> >
> > Email sys.admins have varying ability. When this problem hits, even
> > experienced sys.admins struggle. (Been there; more than once.) The
> > less experienced would struggle even more. The default of this option
> > should be biased in favour of the inexperienced sys.admin. So the
> > default (I suggest) should be "on". (A sys.admin. who is experienced
> > enough to know they don't need it is, by definition, experienced
> > enough to find their way to switching it off.)
> >
> I am convinced by these arguments. I have improved the code since the
> last beta, so that it pre-prepares all the SQL statements once when the
> database is opened, so the SQL code should be even faster than it was. I
> have also switched off the fsync() call that was done at the end of
> every database write operation, so that should speed it up too.
>
> I will release a new beta right now for you to test what is hopefully
> the final version of the code, and the feature will remain enabled in
> the production stable release.
>
> Those who know enough that they can dig themselves out of the hole
> without the assistance of this feature can switch it off.
>
> Jules
>
> --
> Julian Field MEng CITP CEng
> www.MailScanner.info
> Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store
>
> Need help customising MailScanner?
> Contact me!
> Need help fixing or optimising your systems?
> Contact me!
> Need help getting you started solving new requirements from your boss?
> Contact me!
>
> PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
> Follow me at twitter.com/JulesFM and twitter.com/MailScanner
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:56:21 +0100
> From: Julian Field <MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> Subject: 4.76.22
> To: MailScanner discussion <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
> Message-ID:
> <EMEW3|1b07929de9ff07b93e4596ab6f3498bel3RBuU0bMailScanner|
> ecs.soton.ac.uk|020809 at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I have just released a new beta, this will be one of the last before the
> next stable release.
> Please test it, as I have optimised the processing-messages database
> code, and fixed one or two little bugs. The Change Log will tell you all
> the details.
>
> Download as usual from www.mailscanner.info.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jules
>
> --
> Julian Field MEng CITP CEng
> www.MailScanner.info
> Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store
>
> Need help customising MailScanner?
> Contact me!
> Need help fixing or optimising your systems?
> Contact me!
> Need help getting you started solving new requirements from your boss?
> Contact me!
>
> PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
> Follow me at twitter.com/JulesFM and twitter.com/MailScanner
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> --
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
>
> Before posting, read the Wiki (http://wiki.mailscanner.info/).
>
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!
>
>
> End of MailScanner Digest, Vol 40, Issue 38
> *******************************************
>
--
Best Regards
==================
Khaled Hussein
khaled.jamil at gmail.com
Tulkarem - Palestine
==================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20090429/290a18d3/attachment-0001.html
More information about the MailScanner
mailing list