Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Hello Andrzej Adam Filip,
>
> Am 2011-07-08 18:05:11, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
>> Would not it make sense to add autowhitelisting based on Return-Path:
>> header (envelope sender) to auto whitelist mailing lists?
>> [ It may be triggered only when List-Id: header i
Hello Andrzej Adam Filip,
Am 2011-07-08 18:05:11, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> Would not it make sense to add autowhitelisting based on Return-Path:
> header (envelope sender) to auto whitelist mailing lists?
> [ It may be triggered only when List-Id: header is present. ]
Not even the half o
Le vendredi 8 juillet 2011 19:00, Andrzej Adam Filip a écrit :
> Kārlis Repsons wrote:
> > All,
> > I'd like you to review approximately how I'm running spamd. My concern
> > is security. You can see that the child processes are run by spamd user,
> > but the main process is still run by root:
> >
Kārlis Repsons wrote:
> On Friday 08 July 2011 16:54:22 Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:41:36 +, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
>> > All,
>> > I'd like you to review approximately how I'm running spamd. My
>> > concern
>> > is security. You can see that the child processes are run by spa
On Friday 08 July 2011 17:34:13 Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > On Friday 08 July 2011 17:00:50 Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
> >> Do you need spamd changing OS user ids? (e.g. to access
> >> ~/.spamassassin/ )
> >
> > No, I don't!
>
> one could ask how to configure it
A small server. And configuration is
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:03:35 +, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
Stop what?
questions ?
I tried with --port=2580, but still one root process. But you meant
it's not
worth worrying about?
some have answered this already
On Friday 08 July 2011 17:00:50 Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
Do you need spamd
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Lars Jørgensen wrote:
$sa_tag2_level_deflt = 5.2; # add 'spam detected' headers at that level
$sa_kill_level_deflt = 6.2; # triggers spam evasive actions (e.g. blocks mail)
That seems a little aggressiv
On Friday 08 July 2011 16:54:22 Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:41:36 +, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
> > All,
> > I'd like you to review approximately how I'm running spamd. My
> > concern
> > is security. You can see that the child processes are run by spamd
> > user,
> > but the main
Kārlis Repsons wrote:
> All,
> I'd like you to review approximately how I'm running spamd. My concern
> is security. You can see that the child processes are run by spamd user,
> but the main process is still run by root:
>
> ps -C spamd -o user,cmd
> USER CMD
> root /usr/sbin/spamd -d -r
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:41:36 +, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
All,
I'd like you to review approximately how I'm running spamd. My
concern
is security. You can see that the child processes are run by spamd
user,
but the main process is still run by root:
ps -C spamd -o user,cmd
USER CMD
root
All,
I'd like you to review approximately how I'm running spamd. My concern
is security. You can see that the child processes are run by spamd user,
but the main process is still run by root:
ps -C spamd -o user,cmd
USER CMD
root /usr/sbin/spamd -d -r /var/run/spamd.pid -m 2 -u spamd --nou
On Thursday 07 July 2011 16:46:42 Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
> Have you considered using Shortcircuit plugin?
> Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Shortcircuit
Partially I use it. I gave up for anything more than using it with
whitelist_from.
Would not it make sense to add autowhitelisting based on Return-Path:
header (envelope sender) to auto whitelist mailing lists?
[ It may be triggered only when List-Id: header is present. ]
--
[pl>en: Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : a...@onet.eu
Fame is a vapor; popularity an accident; the only eart
John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Lars Jørgensen wrote:
>
$sa_tag2_level_deflt = 5.2; # add 'spam detected' headers at that level
$sa_kill_level_deflt = 6.2; # triggers spam evasive actions (e.g. blocks
mail)
>>
>>> That seems a little aggressive to me. Personally I'd pref
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Lars Jørgensen wrote:
$sa_tag2_level_deflt = 5.2; # add 'spam detected' headers at that level
$sa_kill_level_deflt = 6.2; # triggers spam evasive actions (e.g. blocks mail)
That seems a little aggressive to me. Personally I'd prefer a larger
margin of error for FPs, and
> > $sa_tag2_level_deflt = 5.2; # add 'spam detected' headers at that level
> > $sa_kill_level_deflt = 6.2; # triggers spam evasive actions (e.g. blocks
> > mail)
> That seems a little aggressive to me. Personally I'd prefer a larger
> margin of error for FPs, and would set the discard level t
16 matches
Mail list logo
