> but ignoring mails containing a
> "X-Spam-Flag: YES"
> couldn't hurt, don't you think? But that was just an idea :)
It certainly seems unlikely that a spammer would add that to a
message themselves. :-)
Charlie> You using procmail for delivery? Just include that logic
Charlie> there - don'
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 11:44:44AM -0700, Charlie Watts wrote:
> > couldn't hurt, don't you think? But that was just an idea :)
>
> You using procmail for delivery? Just include that logic there - don't
> pass it through spamassassin again if that header exists.
nope, using qmail-scanner, which
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Olivier M. wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 10:42:41AM -0700, Charlie Watts wrote:
> > As others have mentioned: It's hard to reliably be sure that a message
> > has((n't)?) been scanned before. My system might scan the message before
> > forwarding on to your system, for ins
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 10:42:41AM -0700, Charlie Watts wrote:
> As others have mentioned: It's hard to reliably be sure that a message
> has((n't)?) been scanned before. My system might scan the message before
> forwarding on to your system, for instance.
>
> What I'd recommend is -NOT- using th
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Olivier M. wrote:
> Now a little suggestion (but maybe it's already corrected): I have
> messages which are travelling twice on the server, and it's then scanned
> twice, so spams are getting two or event three *SPAM* in their
> Subject. Shouldn't SA check if there is
"Olivier M." said:
> not if a md5 hash or any ID field that identify a spamassassin copy
> would be added to the X-Spam-Flag field or anywhere... What do you
> think?
wouldn't work -- the spammers could just run SpamAssassin, get the
hash, and then do the mail-out.
However it would be possible
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:53:09PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
| On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 08:42:30PM +0100, Olivier M. wrote:
| > Now a little suggestion (but maybe it's already corrected):
| > I have messages which are travelling twice on the server,
| > and it's then scanned twice, so spams are
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:53:09PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 08:42:30PM +0100, Olivier M. wrote:
> > three *SPAM* in their Subject. Shouldn't SA check if
> > there is already a "X-Spam-Flag" line in the headers, and
> > skip the mail if it's the case ? :)
>
>
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 08:42:30PM +0100, Olivier M. wrote:
> Now a little suggestion (but maybe it's already corrected):
> I have messages which are travelling twice on the server,
> and it's then scanned twice, so spams are getting two or event
> three *SPAM* in their Subject. Shouldn't
Hello and thanks for spamassassin! :)
I discovered your package yesterday on the vmailmgr mailing
list, and I'm now using it with qmail+qmail-scanner: works
great!
Now a little suggestion (but maybe it's already corrected):
I have messages which are travelling twice on the server,
and it's then
10 matches
Mail list logo
