Re: (again) Proposed Patch for Spamassassin

2004-10-11 Thread John Peacock
Michael Holzt wrote: | item leave_old_headers [0|1|2] | | Another mail server before might have checked this mail already and may have | added X-Spam-Status, X-Spam-Flag and X-Spam-Check-By lines. In general this | headers can not be trusted (may be forged by an spammer) and should be | removed

Re: (again) Proposed Patch for Spamassassin

2004-10-11 Thread Keith C. Ivey
John Peacock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still think that the patch should emulate current behavior as a default, i.e. anyone upgrading /now/ should get the current SA plugin behavior, no matter how much I prefer stripping the previous headers. It seems to me that the default behavior should

Re: (again) Proposed Patch for Spamassassin

2004-10-11 Thread Michael Holzt
I still think that the patch should emulate current behavior as a default, i.e. anyone upgrading /now/ should get the current SA plugin behavior, no matter how much I prefer stripping the previous headers. In my opinion the current behaviour is bad, wrong, unusual and dangerous and we should

Re: (again) Proposed Patch for Spamassassin

2004-10-11 Thread John Peacock
Michael Holzt wrote: I'm very certain that nobody right now uses the bug/feature that old X-Spam-Status lines are not getting removed. Reread the comment here: news://nntp.perl.org:119/[EMAIL PROTECTED] which is largely why I reverted the previous patch. If Robert is happy with the ability to

Re: (again) Proposed Patch for Spamassassin

2004-10-11 Thread Michael Holzt
If Robert is happy with the ability to preserve the headers, but having the default behavior change, I'm satisfied and would commit the change. So Robert, please make a comment on this. -kju -- It's an insane world, but i'm proud to be a part of it. -- Bill Hicks

Re: (again) Proposed Patch for Spamassassin

2004-10-11 Thread Matt Sergeant
On 11 Oct 2004, at 19:53, John Peacock wrote: Michael Holzt wrote: I'm very certain that nobody right now uses the bug/feature that old X-Spam-Status lines are not getting removed. Reread the comment here: news://nntp.perl.org:119/[EMAIL PROTECTED] which is largely why I reverted the previous

Re: (again) Proposed Patch for Spamassassin

2004-10-11 Thread John Peacock
Matt Sergeant wrote: As an ex spamassassin developer, I support the change. However I don't use the plugin (SA isn't aggressive enough for me), so don't take my word as gospel. That's what's funny - I don't use SA any more either! I'm using dspam to great effect: Your overall accuracy

Re: (again) Proposed Patch for Spamassassin

2004-10-11 Thread John Peacock
Michael Holzt wrote: So Robert, please make a comment on this. I just saw a posting from Robert on P5P: Perl5 Bug Summary -- Live from the middle of the Adriacic Sea, on the way to Greece. Perl Whirl 2004! So I wouldn't hold your breath... ;) John

Add Apache::Qpsmtpd?

2004-10-11 Thread Matt Sergeant
Would it be worth adding Apache::Qpsmtpd to the base distro? http://www.sergeant.org/Apache-Qpsmtpd/

anti-spamassassin [was Re: (again) Proposed Patch for Spamassassin]

2004-10-11 Thread Matt Sergeant
On 11 Oct 2004, at 20:26, John Peacock wrote: Matt Sergeant wrote: As an ex spamassassin developer, I support the change. However I don't use the plugin (SA isn't aggressive enough for me), so don't take my word as gospel. That's what's funny - I don't use SA any more either! I'm using dspam

Re: anti-spamassassin [was Re: (again) Proposed Patch for Spamassassin]

2004-10-11 Thread Matt Sergeant
On 11 Oct 2004, at 21:06, John Peacock wrote: Block anything without a Message-ID header. Block anything without any Received headers. Block anything found in CBL, SBL and SORBS. Block anything HELOing with a string matching \d+[\.-]\d+ Block anything marked bulk in DCC. I'm managing a corporate