On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:00:48 +0100
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On tor 18 nov 2010 12:59:38 CET, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
> > On 16.11.10 07:48, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >> Spammer can and do use SPF so it's not a good white list either.
> >> If SPF is correct and the domain is in my white list then I
On tor 18 nov 2010 16:43:44 CET, "Sharma, Ashish" wrote
I have a default installation of 'amavisd-new' and with it an old
SpamAssassin installation version 3.2.5.
default ?
Now I have compiled Spamassassin version 3.3.1 from source and
installed it at a custom location.
only freebsd and
Hi,
I have a default installation of 'amavisd-new' and with it an old SpamAssassin
installation version 3.2.5.
Now I have compiled Spamassassin version 3.3.1 from source and installed it at
a custom location.
How can I load my compiled Spamassassin 3.3.1 to the original 'amavisd-new' so
that
On tor 18 nov 2010 12:59:38 CET, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
On 16.11.10 07:48, Marc Perkel wrote:
Spammer can and do use SPF so it's not a good white list either.
If SPF is correct and the domain is in my white list then I'll pass it
as white.
we call this "shitting into one's own mouth".
M
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Kris Deugau wrote:
I noticed recently that the average ~0.8s scan time on our filter
cluster had jumped to just over 3s.
If you can duplicate this behavior on a manual scan of a test message,
there are debug flags and a timing plugin that will help troubleshoot
performan
On 16.11.10 07:48, Marc Perkel wrote:
[...]
> Spammer can and do use SPF so it's not a good white list either.
[...]
> If SPF is correct and the domain is in my white list then I'll pass it
> as white.
[...]
we call this "shitting into one's own mouth".
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas
