Spam Detection Around 55%

[Matt Kettler]

Julian Field wrote:
>>> The existing file assumes:
>>>
>>> you have DCC and pyzor installed, and have enabled their plugins
>>> you don't use NFS, so flock is safe
>>> you have working DNS (likely, but not always true)
>>> you don't want to use the AWL.
>>>
>>> The last 3 are probably safe for 99% of sites, but the NFS bit could really bite
>>> someone in the butt.
>>>   
> I set them to sensible values that will be correct for 99% of my users, 
> particularly the less knowledgeable ones. I don't know anyone who runs a 
> mail server with no dns, it would make lots of things rather hard. If 
> you run a mail server with no dns successfully, you probably know enough 
> to be able to tweak 1 config file.
> 
> You are quite entitled to your opinions, and you are quite entitled to 
> edit the config files too. They aren't rules, they are just a starting 
> point for your own edits.
> 
> I'm not going to get into an argument over this, it's a straight 
> difference of opinion. You have your view, I have mine. Let's just agree 
> to disagree.


I will readily agree to disagree on the DNS and AWL ones. It's purely an opinion
matter.

The NFS one, well.. fine, call it an opinion matter. But don't claim you're
doing it because you want to make things easier for the less knowledgeable.
You're doing it to get better performance for 99.9% of setups, and considering
the NFS users to be experts. You're willing to accept the trade of screwing over
a less knowledgeable person who inherits a NFS setup. Which is fine by me, but
let's be realistic. This is a performance tweak, not a ease-of-use tweak.


That said, I will ask you to consider commenting out the DCC statements. By
default, straight out of the box, SA doesn't 3.1.x support this command because
the DCC plugin isn't loaded by default. Therefore this causes parse errors, and
doesn't belong.

Which is of course, what triggered my reply in the first place. The dcc_path
statement was causing parse errors. That's bad. It breaks RDJ.