On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 08:21:39 -0500
Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> >>>
> > On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 22:12 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> > So, I switched to getmail and these problems
> > went away. Getmail worked just fine using the MDA script I wrote for
> > fetchmail and its configuration file is
>>>
> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 22:12 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>> I use fetchmail on a different box to pull mail from several
>> accounts at an ISP and send those messages to the SA/postfix box.
>>
> OK, more similar to my setup, then, than I'd guessed.
>
> FWIW I used to use fetchmail, but
On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 22:12 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> I use fetchmail on a different box to pull mail from several
> accounts at an ISP and send those messages to the SA/postfix box.
>
OK, more similar to my setup, then, than I'd guessed.
FWIW I used to use fetchmail, but found bugs, such
>>>
>> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 18:38 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>>
> > Is there any tangent down this path were I can get the dropped
>>> > > "test" message to actually flow through, in "normal" fashion?
>>>
>>> > . . .
>> My set up is a little odd in that my pipeline used getmail to
>>>
> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 18:38 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>
>> > > Is there any tangent down this path were I can get the dropped
>> > > "test" message to actually flow through, in "normal" fashion?
>>
>> > From logs I can see that spamd does seem to give the message a
>> > taste, as
On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 18:38 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> > > Is there any tangent down this path were I can get the dropped
> > > "test" message to actually flow through, in "normal" fashion?
>
> > From logs I can see that spamd does seem to give the message a
> > taste, as I can follow
On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 22:34 +, RW wrote:
> A lot of us rely on SA stipping X-Spam-* headers, so header-based
> filtering into a spam folder works correctly. This includes numerous
> mail hosting and freemail providers.
>
Interesting: I've just rechecked this using your last message in this
>>>
>> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 11:56 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
I want to be able to reprocess a particular email, marked as SPAM,
>>> after making some SA tweaks.
>>>
>> I do something similar with with collection of test messages, mostly
>> received spam, that I use to test my local SA
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 21:32:29 +
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 21:00 +, RW wrote:
>
> > There shouldn't be any need for this as SA strips such headers
> > itself.
> Yes, I've seem that said several times, BUT every time I capture some
> spam from Evolution by using
On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 21:00 +, RW wrote:
> There shouldn't be any need for this as SA strips such headers itself.
>
Yes, I've seem that said several times, BUT every time I capture some
spam from Evolution by using "File:Save as mbox" to capture it as a .txt
file and then feed it into SA as I
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 17:42:34 +
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> I do something similar with with collection of test messages, mostly
> received spam, that I use to test my local SA rule set.
>
> Essentially, all I do is:
>
> 1) remove all headers starting with 'X-Spam', otherwise the X-Spam
>
>>>
> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 11:56 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>> I want to be able to reprocess a particular email, marked as SPAM,
>> after making some SA tweaks.
>>
> I do something similar with with collection of test messages, mostly
> received spam, that I use to test my local SA rule
On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 11:56 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> I want to be able to reprocess a particular email, marked as SPAM,
> after making some SA tweaks.
>
I do something similar with with collection of test messages, mostly
received spam, that I use to test my local SA rule set.
Well, here goes, asbestos pants on. I did, honest, do some searching before
asking this.
I want to be able to reprocess a particular email, marked as SPAM, after making
some SA tweaks.
Basically I have saved the email, which was received as an attachment, as a
text file. Thinking to
14 matches
Mail list logo
