Re: popsneaker vs. bandwidth consumption [was:Re: Virus emails]

2003-09-24 Thread Jochen Voss
Hello, On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 03:41:36PM +0200, Paul Seelig wrote: > snip - > Package: popsneaker > Status: install ok installed > Priority: optional > Section: mail > Installed-Size: 159 > Maintainer: Stefan Baehre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Version: 0.6.2-1 > Dep

Re: popsneaker vs. bandwidth consumption

2003-09-24 Thread Joerg Jaspert
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ah, and a fast fix for the actual worm is to set MAXSIZE_ALLOW to > something smaller than 140k. Erm. Its MAXSIZE_DENY for this, except one defines the virus senders with some ALLOW rule before. Brrr. :) -- bye Joerg 2.5 million B.C.: OOG the Open Sou

Re: popsneaker vs. bandwidth consumption

2003-09-24 Thread Joerg Jaspert
Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Of those packages in the archive, mailfilter is the best IMHO. However, I >> ended up *not* using it because it doesn't support ANDing of conditions >> AFAICT ("size > 100k AND header spelling "SUBJECT:"). > Then maybe you should have a look at popsneak

Re: popsneaker vs. bandwidth consumption

2003-09-22 Thread Paul Seelig
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Atterer) writes: > Of those packages in the archive, mailfilter is the best IMHO. However, I > ended up *not* using it because it doesn't support ANDing of conditions > AFAICT ("size > 100k AND header spelling "SUBJECT:"). > Then maybe you should have a look at popsne