Re: Razor and ~500k mail/day

I actualy emailed cloudmark about this for our installation that processes 30k emails to pay, and I got a reply saying that it was fine to use thier servers for free. I'd email them and ask. On Apr 4, 2005 9:03 AM, Brian Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 4, 2005 8:41 AM, Johan Segernäs <[EM

RE: Spamassasin false positive review

Pipe the message to "spamassassin -d" to remove the markup. You can either do this directly from your Unix mail client or first save it as a textfile and then run "spamassassin -d < file.txt". - dan -- Dan Kohn

RE: SpamAssassin Without Bayes

Rather than messing with a (nonexistent) plugin, I use a LearnAsSpam folder. This works on every Exchange server with IMAP enabled. http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SingleUserUnixInstall#head-bea6b8dc4 f219edd3b9976e8f922a8f1c0603125 Or http://tinyurl.com/5xhfa If you want to get fancier,

Re: SpamAssassin Without Bayes

On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 12:28 -0400, Gustafson, Tim wrote: > Hi Everyone! > > I know that Bayes is "the" defacto best way to fight SPAM right now, but > I wonder if anyone out there is running SA without Bayes turned on and > what their experience with it is? > > I run SA with Bayes enabled right n

Re: RulesDuJour error updating bigevil.cf

On Monday, April 4, 2005, 8:25:38 AM, Matt Kettler wrote: > Chris Santerre wrote: >>I shall remove Bigevil info from the site tomorrow. > Actually, if you wouldn't mind, Take the info down and replace it with a > notice that the ruleset is dead and point them to using SURBL instead. A good sugges

Re: Razor and ~500k mail/day

At 08:26 PM 4/4/2005, Ryan Castellucci wrote: I actualy emailed cloudmark about this for our installation that processes 30k emails to pay, and I got a reply saying that it was fine to use thier servers for free. I'd email them and ask. True, but regardless of what amount of email cloudmark is OK w

Re: Razor and ~500k mail/day

Ryan Castellucci wrote: I actualy emailed cloudmark about this for our installation that processes 30k emails to pay, and I got a reply saying that it was fine to use thier servers for free. I'd email them and ask. Was this before or after the new license came into effect?

Re: Problems with spamassassin, milter-spamc, milter-sender and procmail

At 04:17 PM 4/4/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I thought I had everything working just wonderfully ... all that nasty spam was being dropped into the bit bucket as I wanted. However, now I don't seem to be passing things through procmail such that they get dumped. I am really puzzled -- I

Re: Razor and ~500k mail/day

On 2005-04-04 11:03 -0500 or thereabouts, Brian Wong wrote: > You can also try running your own DCC server. Working on DCC as well, up and running i 5 hours but I'd like to use pyzor/razor as well.

RE: Update on Autolearn, SA/SA-milter ID problem, etc

Craig McLean wrote: > Don, some thoughts inline.. > > Don Levey wrote: >> >>> From what I see now, this is because if root is running it then the >>> user >> shifts to 'nobody'. This is damn inconvenient. So, I've tried to >> shift to >> using user 'spamassassin' by using the "-u spamassassin" swi

Spamassassin only autolearning ham, not spam after upgrade to 3.0.2

I have 4 machines configured identically (with the exception of the -m option due to differences in resources on each machine) with SpamAssassin and spamass-milter. I recently upgraded to 3.0.2 from 2.64 and everything seems to be working pretty good with the exception of one machine. After watch

Re: Razor and ~500k mail/day

On Apr 4, 2005 10:36 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ryan Castellucci wrote: > > I actualy emailed cloudmark about this for our installation that > > processes 30k emails to pay, and I got a reply saying that it was fine > > to use thier servers for free. I'd email them and ask.