On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:46:55AM -0800, Justin Mason wrote: >George Georgalis writes: >> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:03:02PM +0000, Sean Doherty wrote: >> >On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 12:50, George Georgalis wrote: >> >> >Do you mean -0.001? Why would you want to penalise mail >> >> >coming thru a trusted path? >> >> >> >> It really doesn't matter to me what the score is, I just want to disable >> >> the test. >> >> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3406 >> >> >> >> My /etc/spamassassin is the reference I replicate out to my other >> >> systems, and systems of my clients, which may or may not be on nat and >> >> certainly are on different networks. >> >> >> >> The setup I use routes mail at the tcp level, it's basically impossible >> >> for a message to reach spam assassin if it's from a trusted network. >> >So why not set trusted_networks to 127.0.0.1. That way you can >> >be certain that the rule will never fire. You'll also get the >> >benefit of the DNS blocklists been checked for the addresses in >> >the Received headers - with your current setup, its possible >> >that some of these will be marked as trusted, and as such you'll >> >lose the benefit of the RBL check. >> >> There is lots of reasons not to do something. What I'm not seeing >> is a reason why I can't stop trusted_networks from using cpu/dns. >> >> your idea sounds okay for some applications (and I'm changing from >> 192.168 to 127.0.0.1 as a matter of course), but I don't want every >> address in headers looked up. I don't want any of them looked up. >> I hope it's okay for me to be that way. > >Use -L.
I had until I recently integrated SURBL, which is not compatable with -L. // George -- George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator Linux BSD IXOYE http://galis.org/george/ cell:646-331-2027 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]