On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 13:48, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
> Cole Tuininga writes:
> > This definitely depends on your setup. I have a couple systems running
> > spamd as root to allow it to su to the given user. It works quite well.
*sigh* I looked into doing things this way. It turns out that whe
Cole Tuininga writes:
> This definitely depends on your setup. I have a couple systems running
> spamd as root to allow it to su to the given user. It works quite well.
Did you roll your own code to handle the su-ing to a given user, or
did you get some code from somewhere? IIRC, I had to man
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 23:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2004, at 5:41pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 2. SPF. This seems to be promoted as something we should really want -
> > tightening the loose SMTP rules which permit spammers to pretend to be
> > sending from arbitrary address
On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 01:13, Jason Stephenson wrote:
> Spamassassin looks in the home directory of the user it is running as
> for the bayes database. It is really designed to be called from a
> procmail filter running as the user whose mail is being scanned.
> However, most setups configure it
Jason Stephenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Spamassassin looks in the home directory of the user it is running as
> for the bayes database.
Yes, and spamd seems to do this too. I think that this is a problem.
The problem is obvious: one person's ham is another person's spam,
and spam/ham wo
Kevin D. Clark wrote:
[snip]
However, I recall that I encountered two problems when I attempted to
use SpamAssassin's spamd/spamc combination:
o my databases for spam/ham wordlists seemed to get misplaced, or,
at least, not consulted when spamc was processing incoming
mail.
Spamass
I haven't messed around with my SpamAssassin setup for a while now,
except to enhance some of the basic scoring checks.
However, I recall that I encountered two problems when I attempted to
use SpamAssassin's spamd/spamc combination:
o my databases for spam/ham wordlists seemed to get mispla
On Sun, 16 May 2004, at 5:41pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 2. SPF. This seems to be promoted as something we should really want -
> tightening the loose SMTP rules which permit spammers to pretend to be
> sending from arbitrary addresses (including yours).
Background information (for the list)
On Sun, 16 May 2004, at 5:41pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> OTOH, my honest answer is that only after I 'fessed up to myself that
> there's no free lunch have we been able to be in control of the spam mess.
Indeed. Spam-filtering is a great "one size does NOT fit all" case. One
person's spam is
On Fri, 14 May 2004, at 9:09pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am looking for recommendations for spam filtering.
As others have said, SpamAssassin is a very good foundation. Even in the
untrained "factory install" configuration, I find it does a very good job.
I just used the canned procmailrc
I would like to thank all on the list for there recommendations. We have
decided to change ISP's and install spamassassin.
Thank you
Neal
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Dan Jenkins wrote:
Bill Sconce wrote:
1. Thunderbird. The "training" interface is presented in a streamlined
way - perhaps that makes it better. Any field experience from the group?
I use Mozilla (1.6) which has the junk mail training like Thunderbird.
I too have been using Mozilla's junk mail filt
Bill Sconce wrote:
1. Thunderbird. The "training" interface is presented in a
streamlined way - perhaps that makes it better. Any field experience
from the group?
I use Mozilla (1.6) which has the junk mail training like Thunderbird. I
also use
SpamAssassin & Procmail on the mail server and som
On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:09:51 -0400
Neal Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am looking for recommendations for spam filtering. The current
> situation is this. Our current ISP told us that spam is our problem not
> theirs (this I believe to be fair except they are hosting our email). We
> ar
On Sun, 2004-05-16 at 09:44, Jerry Feldman wrote:
>
> Your ISP is a bit misguided. SPAM is a serious problem for ISPs as it
> takes up a significant part of their bandwidth.
> But, there is another issue. Should an ISP filter your email. IMHO, they
> should allow their clients to decide whether or
On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:00:57 -0400
Travis Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neal Richardson wrote:
> > I am looking for recommendations for spam filtering. The current
> > situation is this. Our current ISP told us that spam is our problem
> > not theirs (this I believe to be fair except they are h
Neal Richardson wrote:
I am looking for recommendations for spam filtering. The current
situation is this. Our current ISP told us that spam is our problem not
theirs (this I believe to be fair except they are hosting our email). We
are looking for some sort of a gateway/filtering system to try and
Good evening, Neal,
On Fri, 14 May 2004, Neal Richardson wrote:
> I am looking for recommendations for spam filtering. The current
> situation is this. Our current ISP told us that spam is our problem not
> theirs (this I believe to be fair except they are hosting our email). We
> are looking for
I am looking for recommendations for spam filtering. The current
situation is this. Our current ISP told us that spam is our problem not
theirs (this I believe to be fair except they are hosting our email). We
are looking for some sort of a gateway/filtering system to try and stop
the hemorrhaging.
19 matches
Mail list logo
