Timeout should not be a problem.
My SA seems to take 3 to 6 seconds to scan a message. SMTP timeout
should be 10 minutes, for any server that's compliant with rfc.
jay
John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 24 December 2004 06:59 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently, I have set up my
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven Stern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, 26 December 2004 9:18 AM
> To: Paul Grenda
> Subject: Re: Problems with upgrade to SA 3.0.1
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 08:34:14 +1100, "Paul Grenda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately I still
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, 26 December 2004 8:43 AM
> To: Paul Grenda
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Problems with upgrade to SA 3.0.1
>
>
> Paul Grenda wrote:
> > I recently upgraded to SA3.0.1 but I stil
On Friday 24 December 2004 06:59 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Recently, I have set up my account to reject with a 554 SMTP error
> code anything that spamassassin flags as spam, using the default
> threshold of 5.0,
From your web page:
"Bodytest" support - allows you to run filters like spamass
Paul Grenda wrote:
I recently upgraded to SA3.0.1 but I still only seem to be able to catch
between 55% and 70% of spam. I read a thread started by Florian Effenberger
and there was advice that he should upgrade Net::DNS. So I ran
spamassassin -D --lint and it said debug: Net::DNS version is 0.26
I recently upgraded to SA3.0.1 but I still only seem to be able to catch
between 55% and 70% of spam. I read a thread started by Florian Effenberger
and there was advice that he should upgrade Net::DNS. So I ran
spamassassin -D --lint and it said debug: Net::DNS version is 0.26, but need
0.34. S
On Fri, 2004-12-24 at 17:42, Thomas Cameron wrote:
>
> Didn't SPEWS shut down and blacklist the world?
>
> Thomas
No.
--
Robin Lynn Frank Director of Operations
(0 0)Paradigm-Omega, LLC
V http://www.paradigm-omega.com/
=
Tim B wrote:
Bouncing spam is IMHO just as big a problem as the spam itself.
Agreed.
It seems a certain appliance named after a fish likes to bounce spam by
default which has caused our server to receive over 30,000 false bounces
to legitimate email addresses in less an hour yesterday.
Consideri
1. Generate a bounce message to the envelope sender of the message, and
2. During the SMTP session, refuse to accept mail from the client,
by returning a 500-series SMTP error code.
Option 1 is almost always a terrible idea, unless perhaps the sender
has published an SPF record and the result o
I think people are missing an important point in this discussion about
bouncing spam. Really, "bouncing spam" can be used to mean two
different things:
1. Generate a bounce message to the envelope sender of the message, and
2. During the SMTP session, refuse to accept mail from the client,
b
On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 20:29 -0500, Brenda Bell wrote:
> I upgraded from 3.0.1 to 3.0.2 this morning and all of a sudden,
> I can't send myself email from work because spews blacklisted an
> entire block of uunet addresses and my company is in the middle
> of the block. (side note: we do not spam
11 matches
Mail list logo