Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
Before I launch a website with this new and oh-so-great service I thought I'd
check with you people first, just to see what it is that I'm missing with this
oh-so-great idea (most likely that it either exists, or that someone tried it
and got sued into next week). =)
Th
At 03:58 PM 2/12/2003 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
On Tuesday, Feb 11, 2003, at 19:07 Canada/Mountain, Ed Benckert wrote:
Seems like the work put in to dynamically add 'bad sites' based on spam
to a web filter is a waste of time. The problem is spam, not people
clicking on links in spam.
Actually, I
| This is interesting, I never even considered the benefits of running SA
| at the MTA level. Where can I find more information on this? I'd
| really like to look into having SA run system-wide before procmail ever
| sees the message.
Check http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/
Several large
First, sorry for not reading the manual more closely before posting.
I've got whitelisting and mods to the scoring going. Thanks to those
who kindly suggested it.
Here are some things that I'm pretty sure that SpamAssassin cannot do,
and maybe could or even should.
Can SpamAssassin take conditio
SAproxy version 0.91 (2002-02-12) is now up on the web site:
http://saproxy.bloomba.com/
Changes:
- DNS is included and can be turned on (default is "off"), no manual
name server settings are required
- install/uninstall is now prevented if SAproxy is already running
- reinstall and
Also be sure to visit http://relays.osirusoft.com/cgi-bin/rbcheck.cgi This
one checks all the sub-lists that osirusoft uses and a bunch of extras.
Currently it checks 44 blacklists.
At 08:15 AM 2/12/2003 -0500, Frank Pineau wrote:
http://www.samspade.org will do a multi-table lookup for you.
F
OK, a couple of things: the doco is now based off the last stable version,
and where.html is updated with details of SAProxy and amavisd-new, and
rearranged so that the windows stuff is at top (since there's now another
Windows solution, it was getting tricky giving each one equal top billing
on th
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:49:32 -0500
Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 12:27:02PM -0500, Jeffrey Culverhouse wrote:
> > sendmail spamd/spamc and procmail for local delivery. I assume it is
> > procmail that discovers a local address is not valid (since I don't
> >
Hi,
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:05:11 -0500 Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:46:16PM -0600, Bob Apthorpe wrote:
> > - We can still apply user-specific checks (something we can't do when
> > analyzing during the SMTP DATA phase.)
> >
> > The devil (and all his ho
