>...
>Paul, the procmail script Loren and I use simply strips it out. I've read
>too many folks on this list talk about scanning outbound for one reason
>or another to figure premarking is a good spam sign.
>
>Of course, there are odd cases to consider.
>
>Suppose somebody honest or at least passin
On 12/28/2005 1:13 AM, jdow wrote:
(So far nobody has nailed down the PerMsgStatus problems that result
in logs that say a message is spam but no markups at all appear on the
message. THIS is why I strip off spam markups. I trigger on their
presence to indicate that I properly completed a spamc/
From: "List Mail User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>...
>You can only safely skip messages with an X-Spam-Status: that reads
"yes",
>due to the fact that you can't trust it. Of course, spammers can always
>forge a X-Spam-Status: on themselves that declares the message to be
spam,
>but if they do..
>...
>> >You can only safely skip messages with an X-Spam-Status: that reads
>"yes",
>> >due to the fact that you can't trust it. Of course, spammers can always
>> >forge a X-Spam-Status: on themselves that declares the message to be
>spam,
>> >but if they do.. more power to em..
>> >
>>
>> Or even
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for the help. I am useing CommuniGate ,clamav, and
scanspam.sh to call spamc/spamd, in the rules I am
checking for the SA header to prevent looping the message
in the queue. Never thought that this would happen. If I
read the docs right I can create a custom header
> >You can only safely skip messages with an X-Spam-Status: that reads
"yes",
> >due to the fact that you can't trust it. Of course, spammers can always
> >forge a X-Spam-Status: on themselves that declares the message to be
spam,
> >but if they do.. more power to em..
> >
>
> Or even better, you c
On 12/27/2005 08:10 pm, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Why bother? SA isn't confused by them. No sane spamassassin setup would
> ever have this problem. Period.
>
> The problem lies in a user intentionally trying to bypass SA for already
> scanned mail. The fix lies in not doing something so foolish in the
Pollywog wrote:
> On 12/27/2005 02:56 pm, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>>At 08:48 AM 12/27/2005, Jonn R Taylor wrote:
>>
>>>How can I make this go thourgh SA when it thinks it allready has
>>
>>Why wouldn't it go through SA?
>>
>>SA doesn't have any built-in behaviors that will prevent it from
>>re-s
On 12/27/2005 02:56 pm, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 08:48 AM 12/27/2005, Jonn R Taylor wrote:
> >How can I make this go thourgh SA when it thinks it allready has
>
> Why wouldn't it go through SA?
>
> SA doesn't have any built-in behaviors that will prevent it from
> re-scanning a message.
I had
>At 08:48 AM 12/27/2005, Jonn R Taylor wrote:
>>How can I make this go thourgh SA when it thinks it allready has
>
>Why wouldn't it go through SA?
>
>SA doesn't have any built-in behaviors that will prevent it from
>re-scanning a message.
>
>Did you do something in your procmailrc to cause pro
At 08:48 AM 12/27/2005, Jonn R Taylor wrote:
How can I make this go thourgh SA when it thinks it allready has
Why wouldn't it go through SA?
SA doesn't have any built-in behaviors that will prevent it from
re-scanning a message.
Did you do something in your procmailrc to cause procmail
11 matches
Mail list logo
