Jeff Chan wrote on Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:03:34 -0700:
> Stop using BigEvil if you're using SA 3 with network tests.
>
I'd remove "with network tests" from that statement. We don't do any of
the "traditional" network tests (I let it do by sendmail), but we enabled
the URIDNSBL plugin. You can stil
-- Forwarded Message ---
From: Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Brodbeck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:07:05 -0700
Subject: Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 7:42:04 AM, David Brodbeck wrote:
> On Wed, 2
>-Original Message-
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 10:31 AM
>To: SpamAssassin Users
>Subject: Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
>
>
>On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 6:46:00 AM, Chuck Campbell wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 26,
On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 6:46:00 AM, Chuck Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 05:03:34PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
>>
>> Stop using BigEvil if you're using SA 3 with network tests.
>>
> More efficiently? What if you are on a slow network connection? Should
> you use the network t
On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 05:03:34PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
>
> Stop using BigEvil if you're using SA 3 with network tests.
>
More efficiently? What if you are on a slow network connection? Should
you use the network tests?
-chuck
> Anyone using SA 3 with network tests enabled, Net::DNS
> installed and URIDNSBL rules active (which they are by
> default in 3.0.0) should stop using BigEvil.
>
> The static domains in BigEvil are now in the SURBL list
> ws.surbl.org which is enabled by default in SA 3.0.0 along
> with all
On Sunday, September 26, 2004, 2:17:40 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> When I upgraded our first systems to
> 3.0 RCs earlier this month I immediately removed bigevil from
> rules_du_jour and switched on SURBL. bigevil consumes the same amount of
> RAM on 2.64 and I think it doesn't really give that mu
Chris Santerre wrote on Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:40:47 -0400:
> It will consume the
> souls of your server, your family, and that cute girl/guy at your local
> coffee shop!
>
Isn't that what "big evil" does? ;-) When I upgraded our first systems to
3.0 RCs earlier this month I immediately removed big
On Wednesday, September 22, 2004, 2:34:41 PM, Codger Codger wrote:
> I thought SURBL was built in to 3.0 was I mistaken?
Yes, SA 3.0 has built in support for SURBLs, so anyone using
BigEvil should use ws.surbl.org instead and save a huge
amount of SA memory. In other words if you're using 3.0,
do
Hmm..silver lake? Wouldnt it be hacked to pieces by a guy in a hockey
mask?
That's CRYSTAL Lake, not Silver Lake :)
Mike Jackson
I thought SURBL was built in to 3.0 was I mistaken?
On Sep 22, 2004, at 4:40 PM, Chris Santerre wrote:
I just updated Bigevil, which now is 1.25 megs in size. It will
consume the
souls of your server, your family, and that cute girl/guy at your local
coffee shop!
With the release of SA 3.0, for t
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:40:47 -0400
Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just updated Bigevil, which now is 1.25 megs in size. It will
> consume the souls of your server, your family, and that cute
> girl/guy at your local coffee shop!
>
> With the release of SA 3.0, for the love of all t
Quoting Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I just updated Bigevil, which now is 1.25 megs in size. It will consume the
souls of your server, your family, and that cute girl/guy at your local
coffee shop!
With the release of SA 3.0, for the love of all that is digital, use SURBL!!
Tell your ISP's t
13 matches
Mail list logo
