In version 3.2.7, after the first m lookup, I was appending the next IP address to the address that I used for testing. <doh!>

This means that Sp@mX will report every IP address after the first, very bad!

Please download this very important update from the permanent home pinned to the top of this board as soon as possible.

For the benefit of us that may not have been paying attention earlier, would you please reveal what it means to check RDNS entry, f entry, s entry and m entry? What do these letters represent?

I can't give too much info, but I can tell you that these steps verify that the IP address of the sender in a received line is who they say they are, that the received chain entries match, and that the IP address does/does not belong to a known spammer, open relay, zombie, etc...

This is the difference between Jeff and everyone else out there who develops software. He is continually verifying the function and accuracy of Sp@mX and listening to everyone, including industry folks.

I have noticed a significant decrease in a specific type of spam: Porn related.

I'm happy to participate in this process, don't mind the daily software updates, and feel like I'm doing something positive. Sp@mX will only get better and more accurate. Let's just hope that ISP's TOS are not just window dressing, and that they are doing something when their customers who are spamming are identified.

Thanks for all that you do Jeff!

Why not?

Would you like me to send you the source code?

Jeff:

This newest upgrade is dragging on my system (very slow). This is the first time I have had that problem.

Chris

Dragging here also. First version of all releases to do so.

Slow here too for the first time, but if we can weed out the return or failed to deliver messages and get rid of the porn, et al, than cudos to the application and Jeff. Keep up the good work.

Mine's not processing email at all right now. Everything gets slammed into the "notprocessed" folder.

Here to, 1st e-mail 14 minutes second 16 minutes and I'm over 20 minute on the third. It's coming in faster than I can send it out. The program needs away to let us know it's hung ( I think it is 23 minutes). Also, we need an out going counter, 999 sent in a 24 hour time frame and Comcast will give you a 48 hour vacation. So if each spam sends 4 or five spam reports it doesn't take to long to get to 999, believe me it happened over the weekend.

PS
It must have hung 27 minutes

Slow, very slow. (So was 3.2.7 for me.) Takes 9 to 16 minutes to process a single spam this afternoon.

Mine is locked up!!!

The m lookup takes a bit..., give it time to finish what it's doing.

I'll watch this, and if it just winds up being too slow, we can always use another service....

Jeff I did, 26 minutes, in that time frame 3 came in? I'm losing the battle

I'm watching this. If this service winds up being too slow, we can always use another. I like them because the do a composite lookup returning lots of information (that's why it takes so long).

Dragging on my system too (Mac OS X 10.3.7, 2 MB RAM, 1.33 MHz G4).

Haven't used it yet on my Mac. I downloaded 3.2.8 this AM and it ran fine on the first batch I ran on my Windoze XP machine. Now it is slow and processing slowing on the "m" lookup.

No progress, then locked up

Blaatand

Note - Not sure it is freezing, just hangs without any progress.

The m lookup is slow, are you sure its freezing?

Yep, 2 emails processed took 20 min, only got 20 more to do, and at this rate
I will have another 50 before I get these 20 completed. The "lookup m entry"
is very very slow.

One hour to process three

After using 3.2.8 just got this. What does this mean?

From: abuse@madmail.com
Subject: Re: UCE report

"Your message has been deleted unread.

If you are not a spammer, please resend your message to Service -aT- madmail -d0t- com (all lower case)."

Also 3.2.8 has been running over 1 hour and only processed 4 emails!! There is something
wrong with the "lookup m entry" since that is where sp@mX is spending 99.99% of it's
time.

You must have made so change they have started zipping through.

Thanks

No changes have been made. Some of the delays are resource use, and bandwidth related. If these resources aren't busy, they'll respond faster....

Are the services getting slow because they're suddenly receiving a new influx of Sp@mX users?

Wonder what their capacity is versus the number of active Sp@mX programs running.