Re: mailx vs pine local mail scan times

2005-03-06 Thread Bob Proulx
Rob Fantini wrote: Is there a way to disable spamassassin from processing mail sent to our local network from our local network? How are you calling spamassassin? Are you calling it through procmail? If so then you can use procmail to avoid calling spamassasin in those cases. The easiest

Re: mailx vs pine local mail scan times

2005-03-06 Thread Rob Fantini
Bob Proulx wrote: How are you calling spamassassin? Are you calling it through procmail? Yes If so then you can use procmail to avoid calling spamassasin in those cases. The easiest thing would be to avoid processing through spamassassin if the from address were on your network. :0fw *

Re: mailx vs pine local mail scan times

2005-03-06 Thread Bob Proulx
Rob Fantini wrote: Bob Proulx wrote: To improve the accuracy you need to avoid whitelists. Should I avoid whitelists them altogether, or just for local networks checking? The real problem is forgeries and spoofs. Anyone can put any from address they want on a mail message. Viruses

Re: mailx vs pine local mail scan times

2005-03-06 Thread Rob Fantini
Bob Proulx wrote: If you can ensure that mail on your network is not forged We use postfix , procmail and spamassassin. I wonder if a header could be added to a mail from postfix when this part of /etc/postfix/main.cf sees a mail as from local? smtpd_recipient_restrictions =

Re: mailx vs pine local mail scan times

2005-03-06 Thread Bob Proulx
Rob Fantini wrote: I wonder if a header could be added to a mail from postfix when this part of /etc/postfix/main.cf sees a mail as from local? smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, The new header could be checked in procmailrc.. Hmm... I just thought of this on the

mailx vs pine local mail scan times

2005-03-05 Thread Rob Fantini
Hello, - mailx [command line] mail is processed 5x faster than mail sent using pine. we're using Gentoo. software versions: mail-filter/spamassassin-ruledujour-20050106 mail-filter/spamassassin-3.0.2-r1 mail-client/pine-4.62 some of local.cf: trusted_networks 192.168/16 127/8

Re: mailx vs pine local mail scan times

2005-03-05 Thread Matt Kettler
At 12:36 PM 3/5/2005, Rob Fantini wrote: Hello, - mailx [command line] mail is processed 5x faster than mail sent using pine. Your difference in time is 1.1 second vs 5.8 seconds. Is that always consistent over a large set of emails? I can see from your results you've got network checks

Re: mailx vs pine local mail scan times

2005-03-05 Thread Rob Fantini
At very least, try this test with 3 consecutive mails per client to get some feel of varriance in network lookup times. I ran the tests you suggested and sure enough it averages about the same for pine and mailx mails to be processed. Is there a way to disable spamassassin from processing