> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 07:07:53PM +0300, Jari > Fredriksson wrote: >>> Jari Fredriksson wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Then I decided SaneSecurity is not worth it, as >>>> SpamAssassin catches those too, and has less false >>>> positives. >>>> >>>> SaneSecurity triggers way too often when some dumb user >>>> pastes a spam into his mail, or some robot sends a >>>> bounce with an attachment. I do not want to report >>>> those cases to SpamCop, Razor, DCC.. Making me writing >>>> tons of tests in my scripts. Too risky. >>> >>> >>> If someone pasts a spam into their mail it is not a >>> false positive. It is a post that is indistinguishable >>> from spam. There are consequences for that. >>> >> >> Debatable. Anyway, I do not want to punish from that >> kind of a mistake. I'm not an email nazi, while I indeed >> am a spam fighter. > > Ehm, were you scoring SaneSecurity hits like one is > supposed to, or just plain rejecting with them? Sounds > like the latter. >
I don't run ClamAV via SpamAssassin. I have it called by amavisd-new, which does what it does: quarantine. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
