On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 12:45:31PM -, Alexis Manning wrote:
> Do you know if that option will be supported by spamc as well? If so
> I'll probably hang fire until 3.2.0 is released.
spamd doesn't take configuration from spamc, so no.
--
Randomly Selected Tagline:
"I don't think Microsoft i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Matt Kettler writes:
> > But you can use the command-line to force an alternate user_prefs file,
> > and have that file contain a "use_auto_whitelist 0". Assuming you're
> > using the "spamassassin" command line script for your second scan, the
> > -p option will over-ri
Matt Kettler writes:
> Alexis Manning wrote:
> > I use SA as an enduser. In my setup, messages in a certain score range
> > arenât delivered to the mailbox but are held for a few hours so they can
> > be
> > resubmitted, giving DNSBLs/DCC a chance to pick up on new spam. The idea
> > here is
Matt Kettler wrote:
> But you can use the command-line to force an alternate user_prefs file,
> and have that file contain a "use_auto_whitelist 0". Assuming you're
> using the "spamassassin" command line script for your second scan, the
> -p option will over-ride the user_prefs file with any other
Alexis Manning wrote:
> I use SA as an enduser. In my setup, messages in a certain score range
> aren’t delivered to the mailbox but are held for a few hours so they can be
> resubmitted, giving DNSBLs/DCC a chance to pick up on new spam. The idea
> here is that very high scoring messages (for me
I use SA as an enduser. In my setup, messages in a certain score range
arent delivered to the mailbox but are held for a few hours so they can be
resubmitted, giving DNSBLs/DCC a chance to pick up on new spam. The idea
here is that very high scoring messages (for me >15) are dumped in a folder
t
