> spamassassin scanning happening on a machine on my internal network
> having been relayed in from the outside the envelope recipient will look
> like [EMAIL PROTECTED] where tags is a representation of the
> original envelope recipient local and domain parts.
I had written a patch for SA1.5 and
> -Original Message-
> From: Charlie Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 06 February 2002 23:42
> To: Craig Hughes
> Cc: Uwe Willenbacher; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spamd log messages...
>
> Envelope recipients are nice ... a portable
Actually, there was an error in the math in that 581% claim. It should
read 580.2% -- somehow it got rounded up instead of down.
C
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 00:14, Scott Walde wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
>
> > Then all we need is a catchy nickname for my first release :)
>
>
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 23:42, Charlie Watts wrote:
> Envelope recipients are nice ... a portable way to get the envelope
> recipient into spamd would be -great-, because we could include a
> "recipient not listed in To/Cc" rule. (Though that poses scoring
> issues...)
Getting the envelope recipien
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> Then all we need is a catchy nickname for my first release :)
How about "SpamAssassin: Reduce your spam by 581%"?
ttyl
srw
--
Walde TechnologyNetworks, Internet, Intranets
Saskatoon, SK CANADA Linux Support, Web Programming
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Uwe Willenbacher wrote:
> --On Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:22 PM -0600 Dallas Engelken
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > First of all, I run SA2.1.. here is my log output.
>
> Is 2.1 ready for production environments?
>
>
People have strange attitudes about version
on 2/6/02 6:29 PM, Uwe Willenbacher at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --On Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:22 PM -0600 Dallas Engelken
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> First of all, I run SA2.1.. here is my log output.
>
> Is 2.1 ready for production environments?
>
>
Depends what you mea
> > First of all, I run SA2.1.. here is my log output.
>
> Is 2.1 ready for production environments?
>
>From my numbers, it has been more acurate than 2.01. I run it on two low
priority production servers. Have had no problems.
Dallas
___
Spamassas
--On Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:22 PM -0600 Dallas Engelken
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First of all, I run SA2.1.. here is my log output.
Is 2.1 ready for production environments?
>
> Feb 3 04:51:38 whitehat spamd[28483]: connection from
> localhost.localdomain [ 127.0.0.1 ] at p
On 6 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> > b) (preferred) get the "To" address logged
>
> To get that logged, you'll need to have spamd process the message as
> that user I think, which means removing the '-u' flags from both command
> lines. What it's logging is really not who the To: is to, but ra
Following up to my own mail, of course the question becomes "which To:
person do I log? Or should I use someone from the Cc: line?"
So I think this is probably best left as is -- just logging the user
that spamd knows about, not trying to figure anything out from the
message itself.
C
On Wed,
> I am using spamd and spamc in my set up and I find following somewhat
> strange: I get lots of syslog messages with following content:
>
> Feb 6 13:53:58 server spamd[16597]: connection from localhost [ 127.0.0.1
> ] at port 20506
> Feb 6 13:54:00 server spamd[17335]: clean message for (unknow
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 14:04, Uwe Willenbacher wrote:
>
> Feb 6 13:53:58 server spamd[16597]: connection from localhost [ 127.0.0.1
> ] at port 20506
> Feb 6 13:54:00 server spamd[17335]: clean message for (unknown):87 in 2
> seconds.
> Feb 6 13:56:57 server spamd[16597]: connection from lo
13 matches
Mail list logo
