fell off the wagon, climbing back on

[Glenn Steen]

On 22/08/07, Jeff A. Earickson <jaearick at colby.edu> wrote:
> Julian et al,
>
> I replaced my legacy sendmail box with an fancy new all-in-one
> email appliance on July 23.  Anti-spam, anti-virus, integrated
> webmail/POP/IMAP/calendaring, shared mail folders, etc, etc.
> And I bailed off the list, thinking life would be good.

Shame Jeff, shame! To walk with the unbelievers...

> Forgive me, Jules, for I have sinned.  I've gotten my butt kicked
> by both the spammers and the user community in the past month.
> While my new gear is great for integrated webmail etc (and the
> users like it), its anti-spam setup is clearly inferior to MailScanner.
> I figured that the [unamed] appliance might be worse than MailScanner in

Remember that "uname" is a Simple Command, not a Daemon Process. Apply
it liberally as "uname -a" in you penitence.... and salvation might
just be yours.

> terms of anti-spam, but I was shocked at how much of a difference there
> is.
>
> Due to popular demand/angry mobs, I am putting my legacy system
> back in front of the appliance to run sendmail/MailScanner in
> relay mode to get our spam back to where it was.  I had left it
> intact, so this was just a case of updating MailScanner, SA, and clam
> and redoing my sendmail.cf file.
>
> Woe to those who stray from the path of MailScanner.  You
> will be punished.
>
> Jeff Earickson
> Colby College

To aid in your repentance, find Scott Silvas head-banging tool, print
it, use it.

Glad that you've seen the light, returned to the flock, and will
henceforth not stray...;)

Cheers
-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se