> Benjamin Tomhave wrote: > > Yep, though if there was a consensus on this list about an effective > > mailfilter file, I think it would be easy for qmailadmin to change the > > catchall and rewrite the mailfilter file. > > There's no reason for qmailadmin to modify the mailfilter file. There > exists a way to make a mailfilter that does not ever need to be > modified. Plus, there are some people out there probably who are using > procmail or some other filtering program and not just maildrop. > Heretic! j/k Actually, I think that what this simply means is that we collect functional, efficient methods for a few of the popular programs, like procmail and maildrop, and then break it into different configure flag paths, such as --enable-procmail-sa or --enable-maildrop-sa, or vice-versa, and so on.
> Yeah, that works too. I was looking for a way to free up system > resources, not just disable tagging. > My systems are generally much more stressed-out by the qmail-scanner/clamscan calls than by the spamc/spamd calls. I look forward to the day when clamdmail matures beyond alpha code so that I can drop qmail-scanner and all those nasty PERL calls. But that's OT and a diff. issue... :) > > Yep, which is why I haven't previously engaged in discussion on > the topic > > because I knew that my current solution breaks the catchall > functionality > > and doesn't work in all situations. > > Right, but you have some interesting requests, so it's good to get your > voice in. :) > Thanks. It's also a matter of time -- I tend to shuck large threads when I'm busy figuring if I need a question answered I can check the archives. Glad to be of use this time around.
