Re: spamc vs. razor-check ???
Also sprach Patrick McFarland (Sat 22 Feb 02003 at 10:05:14PM -0500):
> On 22-Feb-2003, Michael D. Schleif wrote:
> > This is what I have in ~/.procmailrc:
> >
> > :0 Wc
> > | razor-check
> > :0 Waf
> > | formail -A "X-Razor-Warning: SPAM."
> >
> > :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> > * < 256000
> > | spamc
> >
> > :0:
> > * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes|\
> > ^X-Razor-Warning: SPAM
> > spam
>
> You might wish to use...
>
> :0fw
> | spamassassin -P
>
> :0:
> * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
> caughtspam
>
> ... instead. It puts all spam in a mailbox called caughtspam, and that is also
> the "official" recommended way of doing it.
I'm confused -- what can you possibly mean by ``official''???
# spamassassin --version
SpamAssassin version 2.50-cvs
# less /usr/share/doc/spamassassin/examples/procmailrc.example
# SpamAssassin sample procmailrc
#
# Pipe the mail through spamassassin (replace 'spamassassin' with
'spamc'
# if you use the spamc/spamd combination)
#
# The condition line ensures that only messages smaller than 250 kB
# (250 * 1024 = 256000 bytes) are processed by SpamAssassin. Most spam
# isn't bigger than a few k and working with big messages can bring
# SpamAssassin to its knees.
#
# The lock file ensures that only 1 spamassassin invocation happens
# at 1 time, to keep the load down.
#
:0fw: spamassassin.lock
* < 256000
| spamassassin
# Mails with a score of 15 or higher are almost certainly spam (with
0.05%
# false positives according to rules/STATISTICS.txt). Let's put them in
a
# different mbox. (This one is optional.)
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
almost-certainly-spam
# All mail tagged as spam (eg. with a score higher than the set
threshold)
# is moved to "probably-spam".
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
probably-spam
# Work around procmail bug: any output on stderr will cause the "F" in
"From"
# to be dropped. This will re-add it.
:0
* ^^rom[ ]
{
LOG="*** Dropped F off From_ header! Fixing up. "
:0 fhw
| sed -e '1s/^/F/'
}
--
Best Regards,
mds
mds resource
888.250.3987
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--
Reply to: