Cyndi Norwitz writes:
> This will not work in my situation for more than a certain percentage of my
> non-member posts. The details aren't important (to this list anyway).
Sure, but you're being nibbled to death by mice. Everything that you
can offload onto other people is more time for you t
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:44:29 +0900
> If the spam problem is too great, I may have to disallow non-member posts
> except for people who write me asking to be put on an approved list. I
> have several regular posters who are not s
Cyndi Norwitz writes:
>Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:34:45 -0800
>From: Mark Sapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>How about rejecting or discarding non-member posts instead of holding
>them. does that help?
>
> If the spam problem is too great, I may have to disallow non-member posts
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 22:19:50 -0800
From: Mark Sapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So if I understand, you want spam filtering to apply only to
non-members who aren't in accept_these_nonmembers.
That would be my preference. But I would accept any form of spam filtering
and then simply work w
Cyndi Norwitz writes:
> But this isn't useful to me. Oh, I'm sure some of the really bad spam
> would go away, but this is a health list and so there are *a lot* of false
> positives because we mention a lot of spam-like keywords. So I'd have to
> set the spam level pretty high.
Heh. You'r
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
>
>I agree. There is no easy way I see of doing what I want. I guess I need
>to see what all the options are and play with it for a while and see what
>my ISP does.
So if I understand, you want spam filtering to apply only to
non-members who aren't in accept_these_nonmember
Ive got it working with spamassassin just fine,
It gets spam checked as soon as its received by postfix, then it passes on to
the mailman software - where non dropped spam gets checked again
I just have X-Spam-Flag: YES = discard (or hold for moderation in some more
important lists) in my spam
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:34:45 -0800
From: Mark Sapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How about rejecting or discarding non-member posts instead of holding
them. does that help?
If the spam problem is too great, I may have to disallow non-member posts
except for people who write me asking to be
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
>
> Does list mail (received posts) have any SpamAssassin headers, e.g.
> X-Spam-Status:, X-Spam-Flag:, X-Spam-Level:.
>
>Not taht I can see. Here's a sample header from a spam attempted post:
>
>Received: from b.mx.sonic.net (b.mx.sonic.net [209.204.159.4])
> by l
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:21:01 -0800
From: Mark Sapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
>There is nothing called spam filters in privacy options.
In the admin interface, there should be four sub-pages under Privacy
options...
Yeah, duh, somehow I missed that :)
Does
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
>
>The spam sent to the posting address will be in my moderation window.
>Mixed with the legit posts. That is the problem. Saying "this is spam so
>I'm sending it to you for moderation" is not helpful. The stuff is already
>in moderation.
How about rejecting or discardin
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
>
> Yes. Set up your spam filters under "Privacy options..." then "Spam
> filters".
>
>There is nothing called spam filters in privacy options.
In the admin interface, there should be four sub-pages under Privacy
options...
* Subscription rules
* Sender filters
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:24:32 +0900
Almost. If you worry about false positives, you can ask them to make
sure that the "spam level header" which gives a "spamminess rating"
according to the number of stars (eg, X-Spam-Level: ***
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 14:11:00 -0600
From: Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, that they haven't taken the steps to integrate it with MM yet and have
> no immediate plans to do so.
They don't need to. So long as they're running SpamAssassin on their
machines and using the
Mikael Hansen wrote:
>I have noticed if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not a member of a list and [EMAIL
>PROTECTED] is, then
>posting using From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] along with Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>works?
See the default setting for SENDER_HEADERS and the comments preceding
it in Defaults.py. I
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
>
>QMAIL QUESTION, not Mailman:
>Now my big problem is that my qmail is configured with default, very
>conservative, settings. When I initially set the server up back in
>March, I ran across a page on the net showing how to increase the limits
>and queue sizes (?) to s
Brad Knowles writes:
> On 12/9/07, Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
>
> >>I thought you earlier wrote that SpamAssassin *is* being run by the
> >> ISP,
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> >>but "can't be used" with Mailman.
> >
> > No, that they haven't taken the steps to integrate it with MM yet and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Sjors Gielen wrote:
>> I've just tried sending myself an e-mail again, and it is delivered to
>> Mailman, but I now don't even see an error message appear in the
>> errorlog, it doesn't even *try* to send a reply.
>> Also, I have P
On 12/9/07, Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
>>I thought you earlier wrote that SpamAssassin *is* being run by the ISP,
>
> Correct.
>
>>but "can't be used" with Mailman.
>
> No, that they haven't taken the steps to integrate it with MM yet and have
> no immediate plans to do so.
They don't need t
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:57:57 +0900
I thought you earlier wrote that SpamAssassin *is* being run by the ISP,
Correct.
but "can't be used" with Mailman.
No, that they haven't taken the steps to integrate it with MM yet and have
no im
Sjors Gielen wrote:
>
>I've just tried sending myself an e-mail again, and it is delivered to
>Mailman, but I now don't even see an error message appear in the
>errorlog, it doesn't even *try* to send a reply.
>Also, I have Postgrey installed with Postfix, so that might be why the
>message couldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Sjors Gielen wrote:
>> However, I never see it send a reply, at least not through postfix:
>>
>> Dec 09 14:02:52 2007 (13531) Low level smtp error: (104, 'Connection
>> reset by peer'), msgid:
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Dec 09 14:02
Vinita Aggarwal wrote:
>
>When I run command-> service mailman restart, it gives following error.
>Please help in sorting this error
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# service mailman restart
>/etc/init.d/mailman: line 90: 1911 Segmentation fault rm -f
>/var/lock/subsys/$prog
>/etc/init.d/mailman: line
Sjors Gielen wrote:
>
>However, I never see it send a reply, at least not through postfix:
>
>Dec 09 14:02:52 2007 (13531) Low level smtp error: (104, 'Connection
>reset by peer'), msgid:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Dec 09 14:02:52 2007 (13531) delivery to [EMAIL PROTECTED] failed with
>code -1: (104, 'C
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
After a while of messing with it all, I got Mailman pretty much set up
correctly. I'm using a self-compiled Mailman along with Debians'
postfix. I needed to compile Mailman myself because the Debian version
had 'www-user' compiled-in as the web us
Hi,
When I restart httpd , it gives following error. Please help in solving this
error.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# service httpd restart
Stopping httpd: /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions: line 156: 1099 Segmentation
fault usleep 10
/etc/rc.d/init.d/functions: line 156: 1101 Segmentation fault
Hi
When I run command-> service mailman restart, it gives following error.
Please help in sorting this error
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# service mailman restart
/etc/init.d/mailman: line 90: 1911 Segmentation fault rm -f
/var/lock/subsys/$prog
/etc/init.d/mailman: line 59: 1913 Segmentation fau
Cyndi Norwitz writes:
>Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 08:49:30 -0800
>From: Mark Sapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>SpamAssassin is much better integrated in the MTA ahead of Mailman, but
>if they want to integrate SpamAssassin with Mailman at some point,
>refer them to
>
>
28 matches
Mail list logo