On 08-Mar-10 23:51, Brian wrote:
Yes, but that does not answer my question {and is once more Postfix
biased} AFAIK Postfix is totally unable to reject mail at SMTP time that
Spamassassin decides IS SPAM without the aid of a milter or policy
deamon of some kind. Unless you know different?
You
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 02:36 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
On 08-Mar-10 23:51, Brian wrote:
Yes, but that does not answer my question {and is once more Postfix
biased} AFAIK Postfix is totally unable to reject mail at SMTP time that
Spamassassin decides IS SPAM without the aid of a milter or policy
From: Yet Another Ninja [mailto:sa-l...@alexb.ch]
On 3/4/2010 7:34 PM, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
From: Karsten Bräckelmann [mailto:guent...@rudersport.de]
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 00:12 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 3/3/2010 10:09 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed,
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Ned Slider wrote:
It's clear you either haven't read or haven't understood what Kai wrote,
which btw was spot on.
More attitude. Yeesh. Kai has an opinion. And in fairness, I give his
arguments some serious weight. It's not black-n-white. But this attitude
that he/you
Brian wrote:
I'm glad you like amavis-new. I found it to scale poorly and a single,
common point of failure and fall into the category that is commonly
called 'bloat'. It does illustrate all the missing features of Postfix
in quite a handy example - so thanks for mentioning it.
there's a
* Kai Schaetzl mailli...@conactive.com:
package doesn't. For good reasons. We don't want bloatware and we may want
updates on that plugin much more often then we want updates on the MTA. I
really do not want to update my MTA time and again because it's got a new
policy feature. Postfix
On 2010-03-09 13:51, Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:17 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting a message to make reasonable checks about
the
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:00 +, Robert Brooks wrote:
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:17 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting a
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:04 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
to stay on the Postfix 'merry-go-round' for an answer, or we
can just agree Postfix can't easily do this and move on and stop
flogging this dead horse :-)
good idea -
Here, its totally off topic.
Move it to Postfix
On 2010-03-09 15:48, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
From: Yet Another Ninja [mailto:sa-l...@alexb.ch]
On 3/4/2010 7:34 PM, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
From: Karsten Bräckelmann [mailto:guent...@rudersport.de]
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 00:12 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 3/3/2010 10:09 PM,
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:24 +, Robert Brooks wrote:
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:00 +, Robert Brooks wrote:
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:17 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not
Brian wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:51:45 +:
Yes, but that does not answer my question {and is once more Postfix
biased} AFAIK Postfix is totally unable to reject mail at SMTP time that
Spamassassin decides IS SPAM without the aid of a milter or policy
deamon of some kind.
You have a very
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:00 +, Robert Brooks wrote:
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:17 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:45 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
So Ralf - author of 'The Postfix Book', can you please now tell me how
to get Postfix to reject mail before it accepts it and gives a 250 -
When Spamassassin tags it as spam?
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting a message to make reasonable checks about
the validity or content of that message.
Postfix can do this either via the milter interface OR the
Am 09.03.2010 13:17, schrieb Ralf Hildebrandt:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting a message to make reasonable checks about
the validity or content of that message.
Postfix
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Brian wrote:
I'm happy to stay on the Postfix 'merry-go-round' for an answer, or we
can just agree Postfix can't easily do this and move on and stop
flogging this dead horse :-)
I use Mail Avenger for a front end SMTP Says it all
- Charles
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
So Ralf - author of 'The Postfix Book', can you please now tell me how
to get Postfix to reject mail before it accepts it and gives a 250 -
When Spamassassin tags it as spam?
Well, I'm using amavisd-new for that, since I'm also scanning
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian wrote:
And the bit where I said 'not using amavis / policy deamon / milter'
escaped you where? For someone that wrote a book you don't seem to read
well ;-)
I want you to shoot that target
*pulls out gun*
Without a gun
*pulls out
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 12:35 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Brian wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:51:45 +:
Yes, but that does not answer my question {and is once more Postfix
biased} AFAIK Postfix is totally unable to reject mail at SMTP time that
Spamassassin decides IS SPAM without
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 12:16 +, Ned Slider wrote:
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 12:35 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Brian wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:51:45 +:
Yes, but that does not answer my question {and is once more Postfix
biased} AFAIK Postfix is totally unable to reject
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 12:35 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Brian wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:51:45 +:
Yes, but that does not answer my question {and is once more Postfix
biased} AFAIK Postfix is totally unable to reject mail at SMTP time that
Spamassassin decides IS SPAM without the aid
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:20 +, Brian wrote:
Move it to Postfix lists
Better idea, just drop it! Postfix lacks features and it's a fair
statement.
Brian, you just missed your opportunity to do what you propose.
There are enough arse lickers here without going to the Temple of Weiste
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Second: you are completely misguided in your wish to reject mail after
SMTP data stage.
You may certainly argue for YOUR preference (and I emphasise *preference*)
for the most 'efficient' way to run an SMTP server, but there is nothing
sufficiently
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:17 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting a message to make reasonable checks about
the validity or content of that
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:04 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
to stay on the Postfix 'merry-go-round' for an answer, or we
can just agree Postfix can't easily do this and move on and stop
flogging this dead horse :-)
good idea -
Here, its totally off topic.
Move it to Postfix lists
Brian wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:53:31 +:
End of thread
Obvbiously not for you. Well.
Thank you so much for educating us clueless people. Thank you and good
night.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:38 +, Ned Slider wrote:
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:04 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
to stay on the Postfix 'merry-go-round' for an answer, or we
can just agree Postfix can't easily do this and move on and stop
flogging this dead horse :-)
good
Charles, just a quick answer as we are really OT.
It all simply boils down to (quoting me):
avoid unnecessary processing and avoid unncessary traffic.
and I might add now: with the least disadvantages on both sides.
Assess that and you find it doesn't make sense to spam-scan messages and
Brian wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:17 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk:
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting a message to make reasonable checks about
the validity or content of
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:22:41AM -0600, David Morton wrote:
What exactly *DO* you want??
He's a well known troll here, yet for some reason people want to amuse him
and fill out the list with pointless arguments. PLEASE ignore him, since
noone has taken the job of unsubscribing him
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 08:03, Kai Schaetzl mailli...@conactive.com wrote:
Charles, just a quick answer as we are really OT.
It all simply boils down to (quoting me):
avoid unnecessary processing and avoid unncessary traffic.
and I might add now: with the least disadvantages on both sides.
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Assess that and you find it doesn't make sense to spam-scan messages and
reject them in/after DATA stage in a real world scenario.
I hesitate to jump onto this firing range, but Kai has always seemed
reasonable.
We have very real world experience doing this sort of
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Brian wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:51:45 +:
Yes, but that does not answer my question {and is once more Postfix
biased} AFAIK Postfix is totally unable to reject mail at SMTP time that
Spamassassin decides IS SPAM without the aid of a milter or policy
deamon of some
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Second: you are completely misguided in your wish to reject mail after
SMTP data stage.
You may certainly argue for YOUR preference (and I emphasise *preference*)
for the most 'efficient' way to run an SMTP server, but there is
My Bayesian filter keeps getting screwed up and causing mail flow to
stop. The problem seems to be expiring tokens out of the database. My
expiry setting is set to 200,000. I've tried many different settings for
this but they all seem to behave about the same. Auto learn is also on.
When this
On 3/9/10 1:24 PM, Curtis MacDuff wrote:
My Bayesian filter keeps getting screwed up and causing mail flow to
stop. The problem seems to be expiring tokens out of the database. My
expiry setting is set to 200,000. I've tried many different settings
for this but they all seem to behave about
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:24:19 -0800
Curtis MacDuff curtis.macd...@pspinc.com wrote:
My Bayesian filter keeps getting screwed up and causing mail flow to
stop. The problem seems to be expiring tokens out of the database. My
expiry setting is set to 200,000. I've tried many different settings
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
and you find it doesn't make sense to spam-scan messages and
reject them in/after DATA stage in a real world scenario.
You ignore my arguments. Hardly surprising.
You reword yours, but say nothing new.
It makes only sense if you are die-hard
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Andy Dorman wrote:
So even if we can decide an email is spam before the DATA stage, it
makes no difference since we have to store the thing for a while anyway
in case the user wants to look for something caught that shouldn't be.
(nod) To rely on this methodology requires
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, David Morton wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote:
Indeed, it makes far LESS sense to have a system accept mail but send it
to a spam folder.
Maybe in your particular situation, but you can hardly apply that to
everyone
(nod) It was subject to the conditions I consider 'wide
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
There are other reasons not to do this, for instance legal ones.
Again, you are quoting arguments that favor SMTP reject. It is better to
reject a mail, so that legitimate senders know it, rather than have them
believe it was delivered when it was
Curtis MacDuff wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:24:19 -0800:
My Bayesian filter keeps getting screwed up and causing mail flow to
stop. The problem seems to be expiring tokens out of the database. My
expiry setting is set to 200,000. I've tried many different settings for
this but they all
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Curtis MacDuff wrote:
When this happens the mysqld service eats up loads of CPU and stops
responding to requests from Amavisd-new.
Verify your schema, and that you're not missing any indexes.
And, as others have suggested, turn off auto-expiry and expire from a cron
job
I've tried the manual idea with the --force-expire before. Had the same
problem doing it this way, unless its required to stop Amavis during
this process?
You seemed to have hit the nail on the head though with the Sql module bit:
bayes_store_module Mail::SpamAssassin::BayesStore::SQL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Charles Gregory wrote:
You are not misguided, and neither am I. We just have different situations.
Hmm... policy. Sounds a lot like a feature of postfix, doesn't it?
LOL... And not at all 'misguided' :)
Wait, stop the presses! An
On 9.3.2010 20:24, Curtis MacDuff wrote:
My Bayesian filter keeps getting screwed up and causing mail flow to
stop. The problem seems to be expiring tokens out of the database. My
expiry setting is set to 200,000. I've tried many different settings for
this but they all seem to behave about
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
There are other reasons not to do this, for instance legal ones.
Again, you are quoting arguments that favor SMTP reject. It is
better to
reject a mail, so that legitimate senders know it, rather than have
them
believe
Just wanted to add that this particular line is incorrect:
meta SC_HAM (USER_IN_WHITELIST||USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST||
USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO||NO_RELAYS||ALL_TRUSTED||USER_IN_BLACKLIST_TO||
USER_IN_BLACKLIST)
That will have Blacklisted email filters classified as ham.
- Julian
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
It is NOT illegal to break a contract.
It's called 'fraud'. Look it up.
No, sorry, it's NOT fraud. Fraud requires proving an intentional
misrepresentation.
Well duh. Did you think I meant something else?
Breaking a contract does not imply that
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 16:33 +0200, Henrik K wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:22:41AM -0600, David Morton wrote:
What exactly *DO* you want??
He's a well known troll here, yet for some reason people want to amuse him
and fill out the list with pointless arguments. PLEASE ignore
Noel Butler wrote:
He has a point though, and why is it when people don't agree with
someone the troll label comes out, FFS get over your selves. People
always only half read, and then go half cocked, its called life, get
used to it.
In this case the troll label is more of an
On 3/8/2010 2:33 PM, Renata Dias wrote:
Some messages receive score 0.00/0.00 and other receive the correct
score like the example below.
0/0 generally indicates the message was not scanned at all. The big
giveaway is the threshold is 0, instead of 6.0.
I'm not really an expert on simscan,
On 3/8/2010 4:31 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Renata Dias wrote on Mon, 8 Mar 2010 16:33:15 -0300:
Some messages receive score 0.00/0.00 and other receive the correct score
like the example below.
First: there's no evidence that these messages *should* score anything.
Yes, but is
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:22 -0800, Bob O'Brien wrote:
Noel Butler wrote:
He has a point though, and why is it when people don't agree with
someone the troll label comes out, FFS get over your selves. People
always only half read, and then go half cocked, its called life, get
used to
55 matches
Mail list logo
