(I'm finally getting to a bunch of interesting threads which I lacked
time for when they were current :)
Bruce Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmmm. So milters actually won't be much good for reducing the amount of
> bandwidth occupied by spam - most of the message comes through before a
>
On Tuesday, Apr 26th 2005 at 10:19 -0400, quoth Bruce Dawson:
=>On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 21:54 -0400, Benjamin Scott wrote:
=>> On Apr 25 at 3:13pm, Bruce Dawson wrote:
=>> > Steven: Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that the
=>> > milter is called only after the message had b
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 21:54 -0400, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> On Apr 25 at 3:13pm, Bruce Dawson wrote:
> > Steven: Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that the
> > milter is called only after the message had been received.
> Obviously, in order to do content analysis or othe
Benjamin Scott wrote:
On Apr 25 at 3:13pm, Bruce Dawson wrote:
Steven: Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that
the milter is called only after the message had been received.
Obviously, in order to do content analysis or other magic on a
message, you have to receive the
On Apr 25 at 3:13pm, Bruce Dawson wrote:
Steven: Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that the
milter is called only after the message had been received.
Obviously, in order to do content analysis or other magic on a message, you
have to receive the content. As I understa
On Monday, Apr 25th 2005 at 15:13 -0400, quoth Bruce Dawson:
=>On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 14:45 -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
=>> On Monday, Apr 25th 2005 at 13:20 -0400, quoth Bruce Dawson:
=>>
=>> =>On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 12:47 -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
=>> =>> Thanks, that's just what I don't want t
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 14:45 -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> On Monday, Apr 25th 2005 at 13:20 -0400, quoth Bruce Dawson:
>
> =>On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 12:47 -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> =>> Thanks, that's just what I don't want to do. I really do want to reject
> =>> the mail before reception is com
On Monday, Apr 25th 2005 at 13:20 -0400, quoth Bruce Dawson:
=>On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 12:47 -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
=>> Thanks, that's just what I don't want to do. I really do want to reject
=>> the mail before reception is complete. After I get it then they know I got
=>> it and I have to t
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 12:47 -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> Thanks, that's just what I don't want to do. I really do want to reject
> the mail before reception is complete. After I get it then they know I got
> it and I have to take the rouble to report it to spamcop.
This is rather difficult to d
On Monday, Apr 25th 2005 at 09:10 -0400, quoth Cole Tuininga:
=>On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 13:04 -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
=>> I just found out that because I use spamassassin/sendmail and
=>> spamass-milter, I have to use a sitewide bayes database.
=>
=>If you don't want to use spamass-milter, you
On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 13:04 -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> I just found out that because I use spamassassin/sendmail and
> spamass-milter, I have to use a sitewide bayes database.
If you don't want to use spamass-milter, you could do what I do.
Everybody gets a .procmailrc that looks something lik
I just found out that because I use spamassassin/sendmail and
spamass-milter, I have to use a sitewide bayes database. I also found out
that as an alternative I can use MySQL to be the Bayes DB. I'm a little
leery of tying my sendmail functionality to MySQL. Can people teel me what
they think o
12 matches
Mail list logo
