Re: spam fighting and the bts
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 07:34:33PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> > > Longer-term, I think spamscan needs to be rewritten to processes
> > > multiple messages at a time.
> > Before that, we could make scripts/receive verify that the mail has a
> > destination before bothering spamscan with it. I bet there's a fair bit
> > of junk going through spamscan that would have gotten discarded if it
> > ever got to processall (and then to service or process).
> Actually, the 21000 mails I cleaned yesterday were mostly to valid addresses.
> Very few were to invalid bug numbers.
Do you mean invalid numbers as in exactly that or as invalid addresses in
general? Because receive will weed out the syntactically invalid addresses,
but it takes until process to weed out the semantically invalid ones
2. That which causes joy or happiness.