On 16.08.07 09:39, Marc Perkel wrote: > OK - it's interesting that of all of you who responded this is the only > person who is doing it right.
Are you sure it's right? I do use similar configuration (and I plan use some more filters, like greylisting on MX backups) but I wouldn't say so generally it's right. > I have to say that I'm somewhat surprised > that so few people are preprocessing their email to reduce the SA load. > As we all know SA is very processor and memory expensive. the way you asked lead to thought that you are not interested in people who do per-filtering, so I did not react. > >Am Donnerstag, 16. August 2007 schrieb Marc Perkel: > >>As opposed to preprocessing before using SA to reduce the load. (ie. > >>using blacklist and whitelist before SA) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >I use: > > > >At rcpt time: > >callout to recipient > >zen.spamhaus.org <- Catches 90% > >bl.spamcop.net > >list.dsbl.org > >callout to sender > > > >At data time: > >clamd (malware is rejected) > >spamassassin (>10 Rejected, <10 add headers) > > > >I think i will lower the spamassassin scores to 8 in the near future. > > > >At the moment less then 5% spam reaches spamassasin. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
