Re- hijack - sorry - it was 1:20am when I sent this ... we all make mistakes :)
RE- 'digging' ... I have, but SA seems to have come along a fair bit since SA2.5 days, hence the word 'easiest'. Maybe 'best' would have been a better choice of word. Re- risk. Thing with risk is that 'mileage varies' ... I can live with it in context of how I wish to use lists, but thanks for pointing that out. Thanks for your time in replying, and further appols for annoying you so much. Si. -----Original Message----- From: Karsten Bräckelmann [mailto:guent...@rudersport.de] Sent: 19 August 2010 01:45 To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: abuse/postmaster lists at RFC-Ignorant.org Please do NOT reply to an unrelated message, if you actually intend to start a new thread. In-Reply-To and References headers make your post appear as a reply to another post. You just hi-jacked a thread. On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 01:21 +0100, s...@yacc.co.uk wrote: > A release or two ago, default inclusion of Postmaster and Abuse lists > at RFC-Ignorant.org were turned off (some will say for good reason). > > What is easiest way to turn them back on again? I would agree with the assessment of "for good reason". Moreover, I have a very strong gut feeling, that if finding out the answer to this question is too hard to get by digging through old list posts or rule-sets where it still was used -- one better should not add them, because one doesn't understand the bad things implied. -- char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4"; main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1: (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
