If you're not scanning mail for spam, then you shouldn't be checking for
the spam headers.
I don't think there would be an issue with forged headers. Most are
using Spamassassin at the MTA level via simscan or qmail-scanner. If
it's stripping headers and putting valid ones in, where's the probl
I don't think vdelivermail or vpopmail in general should be calling
spamc/spamassassin. Let that be handled elsewhere. Let's stick to
delivering mail and deciding where it goes.
However, lets remember that if spam is only scanned at the MTA level,
SpamAssassin user preferences will not function
Hi Everybody,
Do anyone know why that spam not marked as spam ?
I know that the score less than the required score that I specified, how can
I make the autolearn of this type of messages to be yes not no i.e.
(autolearn= "ham", or "spam") ?
The Message spam headers:
..
..
..
X-Spam-Checker-Ve
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 7:48 pm, Kurt Bigler wrote:
> on 2/28/05 5:02 PM, Kurt Bigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > on 2/28/05 7:06 AM, Ken Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> We are almost ready to release a new php web interface that talks to the
> >> vpopmail daemon where we planned on addin
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 12:22 am, Charles J. Boening wrote:
> I guess the pw_gid/pw_uid fields are numeric.
Yeah. bit flags.
> Saving a file open/read/close is a good idea if possible. That's why I
> was thinking if the current vpasswd/database structure could be modified
> it wouldn't be too
On Mar 1, 2005, at 5:48 PM, Kurt Bigler wrote:
What I should have said was that my ps listing shows nothing that I
recognize as a vpopmail daemon. I didn't think vdelivermail was a
daemon,
but that may be my ignorance of what a daemon is.
So you could clarify "vpopmail daemon"?
In the vpopmail 5
On Mar 1, 2005, at 10:22 PM, Charles J. Boening wrote:
Would another option be to pass the spam directory as an option to
vdelivermail in the .qmail-default file for a domain? Granted it
wouldn't address making the spam folder settable on a per user basis
but
then again I guess it doesn't really
Point taken. And a good one. :)
-Original Message-
From: Paul Oehler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:36 AM
To: vchkpw@inter7.com
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Spamassin configuration
> I don't think vdelivermail or vpopmail in general should be calling
> spamc/
Hello:
I am using vpopmail 5.4.0 since almost a year now, without any important
problem, in a server with less than 30 domains. Most changes in stable
releases until 5.4.9 seems to be only fixes for the database modules.
Since I use cdb auth module only, is it worth to upgrade? Any important
fix f
>
> > How about making it an environment variable that could be set via
> > tcpserver?
>
> I don't think that would work, since the environment variables only
> flow through to qmail-smtpd. I don't think there's a way for the
> variables to flow through to qmail-local.
>
Correct, they cannot pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alejandro Aguilar Sierra wrote:
| Hello:
|
| I am using vpopmail 5.4.0 since almost a year now, without any important
| problem, in a server with less than 30 domains. Most changes in stable
| releases until 5.4.9 seems to be only fixes for the database
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Oehler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:36 AM
> To: vchkpw@inter7.com
> Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Spamassin configuration
>
> > I don't think vdelivermail or vpopmail in general should be calling
> > spamc/spamassassin. Let that
On Mar 2, 2005, at 9:47 AM, Alejandro Aguilar Sierra wrote:
I am using vpopmail 5.4.0 since almost a year now, without any
important
problem, in a server with less than 30 domains. Most changes in stable
releases until 5.4.9 seems to be only fixes for the database modules.
Since I use cdb auth mod
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 01:49 pm, Nick Harring wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Paul Oehler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:36 AM
> > To: vchkpw@inter7.com
> > Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Spamassin configuration
> >
> > > I don't think vdelivermail or vp
On Mar 2, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Nick Harring wrote:
Obviously this is a current limitation in simscan, however I think the
correct behavior would be to scan once for scoring, then gather white
and black lists, modify scoring accordingly, then delete anybody who
has
exceeded their threshold from the r
this is vpopmail mailing list.
spamassasin has its own. http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/MailingLists
--
Igor
Using the domainlimits file isn't a bad idea. It doesn't really address
scanning on a per user basis. My thoughts on that are if a user doesn't
want the spam filtering they can set their score to say 99.
How would we address users who want the spam tagging but want to handle
the filtering on the
So let me see if I can summarize where this might be going. A lot has
been talked about on this topic.
Use the pw_uid/pw_gid to check and see if a user wants their mail
filtered. I'd also suggest setting another bit for delivery. So we'd
have a bit that says scan for spam and a bit that says de
Sorry and Thanks a lot .
Best Regards.
Samir Noshy
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:59 AM
> To: vchkpw@inter7.com
> Subject: Re: [vchkpw] SpamAssassin spam NOT detected.
>
> this is vpopmail mailing list.
> spa
19 matches
Mail list logo
