On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:24:10 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> please read my previous message
>
> what i asked is careful considered and exactly what i need
> even if you could reach something similar with other ways
> because the admin backend needs to be understood by other
> persons too and final
On 09/17/2014 09:10 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
What kind of simple load balancers are you using? I have been using just
DNS multiple address but that does not work any more. Something a *bit*
more intelligent is needed.
LVS
Am 17.09.2014 um 21:10 schrieb Jari Fredriksson:
> What kind of simple load balancers are you using? I have been using just
> DNS multiple address but that does not work any more. Something a *bit*
> more intelligent is needed
have you considered how to reduce the amount making it
to SA at all? 3
What kind of simple load balancers are you using? I have been using just
DNS multiple address but that does not work any more. Something a *bit*
more intelligent is needed.
--
jarif.bit
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Am 17.09.2014 um 16:47 schrieb Axb:
> On 09/17/2014 04:27 PM, Jesse Norell wrote:
>
>
>>Just a thought - maybe a config setting to not do automatic bayes
>> training for a give from/to addr would be more appropriate? Say a meta
>> rule (more a "flag" but I don't know enough SA rules to kno
On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 16:47 +0200, Axb wrote:
> On 09/17/2014 04:27 PM, Jesse Norell wrote:
>
>
>
> >Just a thought - maybe a config setting to not do automatic bayes
> > training for a give from/to addr would be more appropriate? Say a meta
> > rule (more a "flag" but I don't know enough S
On 09/17/2014 04:27 PM, Jesse Norell wrote:
Just a thought - maybe a config setting to not do automatic bayes
training for a give from/to addr would be more appropriate? Say a meta
rule (more a "flag" but I don't know enough SA rules to know if those
exist) that you set in your own rules.
Am 17.09.2014 um 16:27 schrieb Jesse Norell:
> On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 14:54 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 17.09.2014 um 14:43 schrieb RW:
>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:50:43 +0200
>>> Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
what i want to achieve is 4 levels of negative score for
both - FROM and TO ju
On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 14:54 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 17.09.2014 um 14:43 schrieb RW:
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:50:43 +0200
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> >> what i want to achieve is 4 levels of negative score for
> >> both - FROM and TO just because it makes sense to handle
> >> some mai
Am 17.09.2014 um 14:43 schrieb RW:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:50:43 +0200
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> what i want to achieve is 4 levels of negative score for
>> both - FROM and TO just because it makes sense to handle
>> some mailing lists different without whitelist them completly
>> and the same
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:50:43 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> what i want to achieve is 4 levels of negative score for
> both - FROM and TO just because it makes sense to handle
> some mailing lists different without whitelist them completly
> and the same for different RCPT, one user is living in asi
Am 17.09.2014 um 11:31 schrieb Axb:
> On 09/17/2014 10:51 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> for some mailing-lists a "more_spam_from" would make
>> sense instead whitelist a sender- is there a rule i
>> don't see or has somebody a working one for "local.cf"?
>>
>> honestly i would like to have
On 09/17/2014 10:51 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Hi
for some mailing-lists a "more_spam_from" would make
sense instead whitelist a sender- is there a rule i
don't see or has somebody a working one for "local.cf"?
honestly i would like to have 4 options depending
on sender or RCPT
* more_spam (-2)
Hi
for some mailing-lists a "more_spam_from" would make
sense instead whitelist a sender- is there a rule i
don't see or has somebody a working one for "local.cf"?
honestly i would like to have 4 options depending
on sender or RCPT
* more_spam (-2)
* most_spam (-4)
* lot_of_spam (-6)
* all_spam
14 matches
Mail list logo
