> -Original Message-
> From: Simon.Baker [mailto:simon_ba...@medfin.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2009 4:19 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Daily run output
>
>
> Hi,
>
> We have a spamassassin server filtering our companies emails
> currently.
> Each day we recieve
On 08.01.09 02:45, JVlad wrote:
> Spamassassin 3.2 works very good for me. Now I want to write a plugin in
> Perl that will be executed by spamassassin after each email is processed.
> This script would have to know , , and assigned by SA>. Is it possible?
it is, but why do you want it to be a
Hi,
Spamassassin 3.2 works very good for me. Now I want to write a plugin in
Perl that will be executed by spamassassin after each email is processed.
This script would have to know , , and assigned by SA>. Is it possible?
Hi I am a relative newbie at this and you have helped me before
i have just installed the latest spamassassin on a VPS server on following how
to guides etc, all seems to be working,
my question is now that spamasaassin is installed and i have sent the test line
via email and it has marked it
If the actual subject is "Daily Run Output", it's most likely being
generated by a FreeBSD system. By default those emails go to root. I'm
not sure how to change that, but at least this should help with the
googling.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 09:18:47PM -0800, Simon.Baker wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We hav
On Sat, January 10, 2009 09:15, mouss wrote:
> Not necessarily. you can extend trust if this brings you more
> benefits than problems.
msa_networks depends on trusted_networks, does it make sense ?
maybe, maybe not but i keep my trusted at very few, olso so dns
whitelist will be quered to give m
McDonald, Dan a écrit :
> On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 13:21 +0300, Sergey Kovalev wrote:
>> mouss wrote:
On 6-Jan-2009, at 08:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I realize that HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI has or had a reasonable ruleqa
> value. But, I wonder if SA should apply higher standards than that, an
Benny Pedersen a écrit :
> On Fri, January 9, 2009 22:44, mouss wrote:
>
>> # spf/dkim/dk
>> whitelist_from_auth payme...@paypal.com
>
> this one does not exists
>
> whitelist_auth
> def_whitelist_auth
> unwhitelist_auth
>
> does
>
thanks for the correction. next time, I'll cut-n-paste inste
Gerald Turner a écrit :
> [snip]
>
> It is before-queue while the SMTP connection is still active. I like to
> bounce in case legitimate people that have yet to be whitelisted trigger
> a false-positive.
>
yes, reject is generally better than discard.
>
> Other than possibly dropping a false
