On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 04:14:41PM +0100, Beginner wrote:
> That sounds reasonable. I'll create a file (whitelist.cf) for
> manually whitelisting senders. Am I right in thinking that I will
> need to HUP SA after each edit?
Yes.
> provides. The would also have the same security problem with thi
On 13 Sep 2006 at 10:50, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> If you want something specifically always whitelisted, yes, it needs
> a whitelist_* config somewhere. If user prefs are disabled, it would
> need to be in a site-wide config file, though not necessarily local.cf
> (*.cf is fine).
That sounds rea
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 03:42:12PM +0100, Dermot Paikkos wrote:
> Does that mean the only way to whitelist senders is manually via the
> local.cf as I have disabled user_prefers? If so, what would be the
If you want something specifically always whitelisted, yes, it needs
a whitelist_* config so
On 13 Sep 2006 at 10:21, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Beginner wrote:
> >
> I hope that 3.0.3 version is the one that Debian patched to fix the
> two security holes that exist in the original 3.0.3. (AFAIK Debian did
> backport the fixes, and made a 3.0.3-x release)
>
> See: http://wiki.apache.org/spa
Beginner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> === SyS Stuff
> SpamAssassin version 3.0.3
> running on Perl version 5.8.4
>
> Exim 4.2, on Debian 3.1, sitewide config.
>
I hope that 3.0.3 version is the one that Debian patched to fix the two
security holes that exist in the original 3.0.3. (AFAIK Debian d
Hi,
=== SyS Stuff
SpamAssassin version 3.0.3
running on Perl version 5.8.4
Exim 4.2, on Debian 3.1, sitewide config.
/usr/sbin/spamd --nouser-config --max-children 6 --helper-home-
dir=/var/spool/spamassassin/ --username=nobody -d --
pidfile=/usr/local/run/spamd.pid
=
