On Wed, 20 May 2009, W B Hacker wrote: > > Unless 'partially obfuscated' changed more than I think it did, roughly > one-second processing is within reach on that one, as it is a known spam engine: >
That's an interesting comment, as I have several customers for which I've had to whitelist constantcontact. Can we stick to just the technical issue the OP is having? > > Which raises the question - how much of the problem the OP reports is > driven by a server spending more time than it needs to anal-izing spam > that could have been rejected early on smell alone? > Spam is determined by the recipient or domain owner. You're neither in this case ;) -- -------------------------------------------------------- Dave Lugo [email protected] LC Unit #260 TINLC Have you hugged your firewall today? No spam, thanks. -------------------------------------------------------- Are you the police? . . . . No ma'am, we're sysadmins. -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
