Re: Any performance improvements since $VERSION = "3.000002";

Robert Nicholson wrote: > I'm currently running the above release and it's working quite well > but I wanted to ask has performance been improved significantly since > this release? What incentive is there to upgrade to a more recent > release? > You mean besides the fact that 3.02 is vulnerable t

Any performance improvements since $VERSION = "3.000002";

I'm currently running the above release and it's working quite well but I wanted to ask has performance been improved significantly since this release? What incentive is there to upgrade to a more recent release?

Re: Filtering this group

jdow wrote: > From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Jim Smith wrote: >>> I have been using an email address for all maillists that I >>> subscribe to >>> that doesn't get filtered by SA. Since subscribing to this list, it >>> is now >>> being pounded with spam (gee, who'd guess that a SA li

Re: Strict SA config. and Postfix

Bowie Bailey wrote: LDB wrote: I am invoking spamc through a filter script where spamd is listening. Also, I am using PostFix as the MTA. My platform is Debian Linux. I am SA version 3.0.3. The below config. captures about 1700 spams a day but it is NOT enough. Can anyone kindly suggest a

Re: Strict SA config. and Postfix

mouss wrote: LDB wrote: I am invoking spamc through a filter script where spamd is listening. Also, I am using PostFix as the MTA. My platform is Debian Linux. I am SA version 3.0.3. The below config. captures about 1700 spams a day but it is NOT enough. - Add some SARE rules. - enable URIBL

Summer of Code reminder

A reminder: all student proposals are due in by 17.00 PDT on May 8 -- tomorrow! --j.

Re: Help needed with spam attack!!!

Matt Kettler wrote: Tom Q. Citizen wrote: Hi! I host a number of domains on a box and I recently added one which has resulted in that domain literally being HAMMERED by some spammer sending spam to every kind of bogus e-mail address for this new domain you can think of. The server is a Linu

Re: Filtering this group

jdow wrote: With procmail in your .procmailrc file. ===8<--- :0 fw: spamassassin.lock * < 50 * !^List-Id: .*(spamassassin\.apache.\org) | /usr/bin/spamc -t 150 -u #LOGNAME ===8<--- That indeed works, with a caveat though: if the spammer knows you do it, he can add that header. Of course,

Re: Filtering this group

From: "mouss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jim Smith wrote: I have been using an email address for all maillists that I subscribe to that doesn't get filtered by SA. Since subscribing to this list, it is now being pounded with spam (gee, who'd guess that a SA list would be harvested and pounded by spamm

Re: Filtering this group

Jim Smith wrote: I have been using an email address for all maillists that I subscribe to that doesn't get filtered by SA. Since subscribing to this list, it is now being pounded with spam (gee, who'd guess that a SA list would be harvested and pounded by spammers ). Anyway, I'm going to change e

Re: Filtering this group

From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jim Smith wrote: I have been using an email address for all maillists that I subscribe to that doesn't get filtered by SA. Since subscribing to this list, it is now being pounded with spam (gee, who'd guess that a SA list would be harvested and pounded b