* Kjetil Kjernsmo (kjetil@kjernsmo.net) [031009 04:20]: > On Thursday 09 October 2003 06:01, Will Trillich wrote: > > i get a LOT of spam that slips thru spamassassin -- > > > > it's multipart/alternative, but the only alternative is html, > > which i would hope would get a positive hit under "html-only > > email" test. > > > > the end of all the headers looks thus: > > > > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > > boundary="D6BF60FCF.6" > > X-Priority: 3 > > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=4.0 tests= version=2.20 > > I would *strongly* recommend using a more recent version of > SpamAssassin. This is an arms race.... > > I use the packages from > deb http://people.debian.org/~aurel32/BACKPORTS stable main > They are pretty bleeding edge, but I think they work very well. Aurelien > Jarno does a really good job with them, I think so you can use apt-get > upgrade to keep SpamAssassin up-to-date. Agreed. Upgrading to a new version of spamassassin reminded me of the first time I installed spamassassin (previously using nothing at all). I would like to point out, also, that a pure stable box can be kept even purer if you use Aurelien's individual sources.list deb lines, a la deb http://people.debian.org/~aurel32/BACKPORTS woody-spamassassin main deb http://people.debian.org/~aurel32/BACKPORTS woody-clamav main That way, you know exactly which packages are being upgraded to unofficial versions. Sometimes, with large collections of backports, it becomes more difficult to track which packages come from where, and which are required for what. I have no doubt that all of Aurelien's packages are high quality, but I like specifying more precisely exactly what I want to upgrade and resting assured that the rest of my system is pure stable. good times, Vineet -- http://www.doorstop.net/ -- http://www.anti-dmca.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature