Sure, send me a patch :)
C
On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 18:49, Duncan Findlay wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 09:05:02AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> on 1/29/02 7:14 PM, Duncan Findlay at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:23:56PM -0500, dman wrote:
> >> Wow. I wonde
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 09:05:02AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> on 1/29/02 7:14 PM, Duncan Findlay at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:23:56PM -0500, dman wrote:
> >> Wow. I wonder what the cause is ... probably CPU due to heavy regex
> >
> > I'm guessing RAM is the lim
on 1/29/02 7:14 PM, Duncan Findlay at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:23:56PM -0500, dman wrote:
>> Wow. I wonder what the cause is ... probably CPU due to heavy regex
>
> I'm guessing RAM is the limiting factor. It's a PI/100 w/ 40 MB RAM.
>
RAM is more likely -- my ~1
From: "Duncan Findlay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:23:56PM -0500, dman wrote:
> > | Yes. I am. I think it would take an hour after I start my computer
is I
> > | used spamassassin -p, rather than 20 minutes :-)
> >
> > Wow. I wonder what the cause is ... probably CPU due
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:23:56PM -0500, dman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 08:39:16PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> | On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:13:09PM -0500, dman wrote:
> | > Sure. And a default to off of any superfluous tests achieves this as
> | > well. BTW, Duncan, are you using spam
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 08:39:16PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
| On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:13:09PM -0500, dman wrote:
| > Sure. And a default to off of any superfluous tests achieves this as
| > well. BTW, Duncan, are you using spamd? On my (relatively fast)
| > system I see a major differenc
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:13:09PM -0500, dman wrote:
> Sure. And a default to off of any superfluous tests achieves this as
> well. BTW, Duncan, are you using spamd? On my (relatively fast)
> system I see a major difference bewteen using spamd and
> 'spamassassin'. (most scans take 1 second o
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 06:55:56PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
| On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 05:53:01PM -0500, Mike Coughlan wrote:
| > > > My view on this (here, now) is :
| > > > If it is trivially easy to flag the virus within the existing SA
| > > > framework, why not?
| >
| > Because I like how
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 05:53:01PM -0500, Mike Coughlan wrote:
> > > My view on this (here, now) is :
> > > If it is trivially easy to flag the virus within the existing SA
> > > framework, why not?
>
> Because I like how viruses are dealt with by my mail virus checker, and I
> fear this will int
> > My view on this (here, now) is :
> > If it is trivially easy to flag the virus within the existing SA
> > framework, why not?
Because I like how viruses are dealt with by my mail virus checker, and I
fear this will interfere.
> > Just three more lines in the config file, and easy enough for
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 08:25:56AM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
| On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, dman wrote:
| > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:58:56PM -0500, Mike Coughlan wrote:
| >
| >| > Has anybody created a rule for the MyParty virus? It is trapped by
| >| > our virus scanner, but it would be nice to hav
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 04:48:40PM -0500, Mike Coughlan wrote:
| > Besides, why not block it with the content filtering rules of your MTA?
|
| I would also add that it is best to catch viruses based upon *the potential*
| for damage. Otherwise you are always one step behind.
Hehe. The only "da
> Besides, why not block it with the content filtering rules of your MTA?
I would also add that it is best to catch viruses based upon *the potential*
for damage. Otherwise you are always one step behind.
Our "promail sanatizer" does just that and has done a great job. IMHO, your
request, and o
13 matches
Mail list logo
