On 8/22/07, Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 8/22/07, Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's still not clear (at least to me) what you actually want to do and
> > what happens that creates a problem.
> > You provide virus scanning, but not spam scanning? And they reject the
>
having your system in the path for the traffic anyway? Why not just
> point their MX record straight to their machine?
Because they are paying for the Virus scanning feature ...
>
>
> >>> "sacoo sacoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8/22/2007 8:10:58 AM >>>
>
ple case after doing the spamassassin -t spam.txt I get this
(21,7points) and I would drop the mail and avoid the overhead of my server
trying to deliver it to a non-existant source:
Content analysis details: (21.7 points, 5.0 required)
I cannot post the whole result because the message gets reject
ecreasing the quality of
> their service. (and if you don't, you'll be creating backscatter)
>
> It's a no-win scenario. If they do their own spam scanning, they
> should accept the mail directly.
>
> On Aug 21, 2007, at 8:49 AM, sacoo sacoo wrote:
> > It must
Hello,
It must been asked before, but I couldn't find any suitable, will be glad if
you point me somewhere...
In our company we have the (mailer-exchange -> spam-scanner -> customers
with their own mail servers) topology.
We relay mail to them but some of them don't have the spam service with us
a
