> > If it gets past this ACL, the message was too big to be scanned, or > > it's score was below SpamAssassin::Conf::required_hits.
> You can use
> > this data as the basis for further decisions.
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> thanks for pointing this out. I forgot to mention this. Of
> course this is much more easy, but only works if you want to
> deny based on SA's result. If you want to tag the mail for
> further processing, you have to stick with the long version I
> posted, because defers in warn acl statements pass the
> control flow to the next acl statement.
Patrick,
exactly so. Our user base here is paranoid about losing genuine messages so we only reject on very high spam scores (>100). The
rest are tagged and client and exim filtering based on user set scores are applied to recived messages. Without the spamd state
check we were passing significant numbers of obvious spam messages without appropriate headers when spamd was down.
Clive McDowell
Information Services
The Queen's University of Belfast
