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: