On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 12:42:15AM -0400, Larry Gilson wrote: > Hi Alex,
> > in master.cf: > > > > spamc unix - n n - - pipe > > flags=Fq > > user=spamcheck > > argv=/usr/bin/spamc -x -e /usr/sbin/sendmail -i -f > > $sender $recipient > This solution is simple and probably provides the best performance of all > the options. However, it provides no error checking nor backup. I check to > see if the message passed through spamc, if not I run it through > spamassassin. And as Jim pointed out from the spamc man page, using the -e > option has a slight chance of loosing mail. Thanks for answering Larry. I'm under the impression that I could safely use "-e" because I also use "-x": "Don't use the 'safe fallback' error-recovery method, which passes through the unaltered message if an error occurs. Instead, exit with an error code, and let the MTA queue up the mails for a retry later. " In other words: I expect that postfix will handle the cases where spamc gets into trouble. Are you saying this isn't true? regards, Alex ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
