> > You are forgetting that there are two pieces here, spamc and spamd. spamc
> > has a timeout. I believe it works like this.
> >
> > spamc sends the message to spamd. If spamd doesn't finish in time, spamc
> > goes ahead and releases the message unchanged. This doesn't shut down
> > spamd, whic
Jack Gostl wrote:
You are forgetting that there are two pieces here, spamc and spamd. spamc
has a timeout. I believe it works like this.
spamc sends the message to spamd. If spamd doesn't finish in time, spamc
goes ahead and releases the message unchanged. This doesn't shut down
spamd, which con
Jack Gostl wrote:
Are we talking about messages that have been processed through spamd but
not marked, or ones that somehow bypassed spamd altogether? I find an
occasional message gets missed by spamd when I *restart* it to pick up on
new rules :-)
- Charles
Spamd does see the message (I ver
> > Are we talking about messages that have been processed through spamd but
> > not marked, or ones that somehow bypassed spamd altogether? I find an
> > occasional message gets missed by spamd when I *restart* it to pick up on
> > new rules :-)
> >
> > - Charles
> >
>
> Spamd does see the
Charles Gregory wrote:
Hiyo!
Are we talking about messages that have been processed through spamd but
not marked, or ones that somehow bypassed spamd altogether? I find an
occasional message gets missed by spamd when I *restart* it to pick up on
new rules :-)
- Charles
Spamd does see the m
Hiyo!
Are we talking about messages that have been processed through spamd but
not marked, or ones that somehow bypassed spamd altogether? I find an
occasional message gets missed by spamd when I *restart* it to pick up on
new rules :-)
- Charles
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Martin, Jeffrey wrote:
>
