On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 04:14:13PM -0600, Chris Barnes is rumored to have said:
>
> I turned SA off in Mailscanner, letting it handle just
> the the running of ClamAV. SA is still being called by procmail.
>
> Q: Is it just a "wierd way"?
Not weird to me - it's how I do it. I prefer separate to
At 04:14 PM 11/3/03 -0600, Chris Barnes wrote:
Background: I had SpamAssassin 2.60 running just fine (using sendmail).
I was calling spamd via the /etc/procmail.
After installing Mailscanner and ClamAV, I noticed that the original SA
conf file was being ignored in favor of the smaller version in th
Background: I had SpamAssassin 2.60 running just fine (using sendmail).
I was calling spamd via the /etc/procmail.
After installing Mailscanner and ClamAV, I noticed that the original SA
conf file was being ignored in favor of the smaller version in the
Mailscanner conf file. Since I have custom
On Friday 25 July 2003 11:52 am, Jeff Funk wrote:
> Here's a header of an e-mail I just received. The F'word has been replaced
> with X's. Isn't there a default rule in SA somewhere that would catch
> that? Seems like a pretty obvious nasty to me . . . .
No, such a word is commonly used in non-
Here's a header of an e-mail I just received. The F'word has been replaced with X's.
Isn't there a default rule in SA somewhere that would catch that? Seems like a pretty
obvious nasty to me . . . .
Subject: Naked victims being XX
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.5 required=6.6
tests=DAT
