On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 05:29:17PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> I think -F1 is the default, isn't it? Since you're probably more
Err - duh. I meant "-F 0" :-)
Sheezh, too many brain cells firing at once here!
> familiar with what such people might want to hear (I don't use that
> config, and am liable to misdocument things), want to knock something up
> and forward a patch?
OK, it should go into http://spamassassin.org/sitewide.html
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Information Security Manager
Trimble Navigation Ltd.
Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
*** sitewide.html.orig Tue Feb 5 14:40:53 2002
--- public_html/sitewide.html Tue Feb 5 14:47:52 2002
***************
*** 130,141 ****
to reject, manipulate or otherwise mangle the message."
</li>
</ol>
<p>
It's worth noting that the SpamAssassin also includes
<strong>spamd</strong>, a daemonized
version of SpamAssassin with a low-overhead C client,
contributed by Craig R.
Hughes. This greatly improves its suitability in high-volume
setups, by
! massively increasing the message throughput.
</p>
<p>
--- 130,144 ----
to reject, manipulate or otherwise mangle the message."
</li>
+ <li>
+ <a
+href="http://qmail-scanner.sourceforge.net/";>Qmail-Scanner</a>, a Email content
+filter that scans all e-mail messages sent through a <a
+href="http://www.qmail.org/";>Qmail</a> installation, and can block messages based on
+a variety of methods such as presence of virii, specfic header content, attachments
+and now SpamAssassin.
+ </li>
</ol>
<p>
It's worth noting that the SpamAssassin also includes
<strong>spamd</strong>, a daemonized
version of SpamAssassin with a low-overhead C client,
contributed by Craig R.
Hughes. This greatly improves its suitability in high-volume
setups, by
! massively increasing the message throughput. Remember, when
running SpamAssassin in such a site-wide configuration, it is almost 100% likely you
will want to run spamd with the "-F 0" option: i.e. stop SpamAssassin added a "From "
header. Without "-F 0", SpamAssassin will tend to <b>break</b> messages as such
systems will end up adding their own headers on top of the message - ruining the End
User Experience :-)
</p>
<p>
