[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...



On Sunday 12 March 2006 18:46, Steve Lamb wrote:
>Tim Connors said:
>> I think it would would work much easier for you to direct all email
>> with debian list headers to not go through your filters at all.
>
>    This is both not desirable and not possible.
>
>    While it is possible to skip my Spamassassin filters it is not
>desirable.  I could exclude d.o machines from the SA check but the
> point of that check is that incoming mail, regardless of source, is
> run through spam/virus checks.  This is to ensure that nothing gets
> in or out.  I do mean all mail.  I don't make exceptions for my
> network or even the local machine.  The fact that spam does make it
> through d.o's filters and onto gives credit to this strategy and is a
> point on why I say it is a vector.
>
>    The second one is not possible.  Thunderbird's Bayesian scan is on
> for everything in the account or off for everything in the account. 
> So to turn it off for d-u would require turning it off for several
> other mailing lists as well as my inbox.
>
>    Quite frankly this suggestion only points that there is indeed a
> problem here to solve.  If the answer to anyone is for them to lower
> their common sense defenses then something is majorly wrong.  It's
> akin to my ISP telling me to be able to help me I had to plug my
> Windows box directly into the network and remove any and all
> firewalls between it and the network.   Is there any person here who
> would willingly do that outside the most dire of circumstances?

Its solvable Steve, but at the expense of a considerable amount of wheel 
spinning in kmail, by haveing it do the pipe thru SA.  I am now doing 
the SA check in procmail for all incoming as that offloads a 
considerable amount of time from kmail giving it much more responsive a 
face.

However, I am still doing the destination sorting via kmail, so I could 
pick d-u off before it checks the headers SA adds, but I see little or 
nothing to be gained by that in the real world.

But that is one way I suppose.  I suppose one could write a procmail 
rule to bypass the SA run there, but again, to what real world effect?
 
>--
>Steve Lamb

-- 
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.



Reply to: