On Wed, 20 May 2009, W B Hacker wrote:
>
> Unless 'partially obfuscated' changed more than I think it did, roughly
> one-second processing is within reach on that one, as it is a known spam
engine:
>
That's an interesting comment, as I have several customers for
which I've had to whitelist constantcontact.
Can we stick to just the technical issue the OP is having?
>
> Which raises the question - how much of the problem the OP reports is
> driven by a server spending more time than it needs to anal-izing spam
> that could have been rejected early on smell alone?
>
Spam is determined by the recipient or domain owner. You're
neither in this case ;)
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Dave Lugo dlugo@??? LC Unit #260 TINLC
Have you hugged your firewall today? No spam, thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------
Are you the police? . . . . No ma'am, we're sysadmins.
