hermit921 at YAHOO.COM
Fri Feb 13 18:45:21 GMT 2004
At 02:22 AM 2/13/2004, Julian Field wrote:
>At 10:09 13/02/2004, you wrote:
>> > >How about the current unstable?
>> > They are in there.
>>Perfect. Good to know since I am about to update the mailscanner-devel
>>port in a few seconds... :-)
>> > Won't be necessary once 4.27 is produced. But if you want to
>> > support them in BSD 4.26 then that's fine with me.
>>Is 4.27 coming so soon? I expected to see 4.26.8 to be the final release
>>for a few weeks.
>No, I'm just putting out betas when I feel like it. I probably won't
>release the stable version until start of April.
>>I think I missed parts of the "to bounce or not to bounce" discussion.
>>Should we not alter the manpages for the new bounce stuff?
>There is a new "Enable Spam Bounce" option, for which the docs are below.
>Feel free to tell people not to use it. The default value is "no".
># You can use this ruleset to enable the "bounce" Spam Action.
># You must *only* enable this for mail from sites with which you have
># agreed to bounce possible spam. Use it on low-scoring spam only (<10)
># and only to your regular customers for use in the rare case that a
># message is mis-tagged as spam when it shouldn't have been.
># Beware that many sites will automatically delete the bounce messages
># created by using this option unless you have agreed this with them in
>Enable Spam Bounce = %rules-dir%/bounce.rules
>MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
How about adding a line to your comments that bouncing to others may
generate an irate response because you are sending them spam.
More information about the MailScanner