From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Marek Lindner Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 23:11:27 +0800 References: <200910061328.04894.holger@layer-acht.org> <200910062127.42925.lindner_marek@yahoo.de> <20091006140218.GF6646@lunn.ch> In-Reply-To: <20091006140218.GF6646@lunn.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200910062311.27582.lindner_marek@yahoo.de> Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Fwd: Re: Debian extra modules Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking On Tuesday 06 October 2009 22:02:18 Andrew Lunn wrote: > I don't understand these figures. Ah, this is for the complete mail > server. That explains why there was say 128 received on Oct 4, yet > only a handful in the list archive. Well, these include _all_ mail deliveries (postmaster, listmaster, root, trac changes, etc). > Do you at least have spamassassin running? It would be interesting to > see how many of the rejected emails spamassassin also decided were > spam. Could you configure postfix to keep a copy of the rejected. I > can then manually perform some tests with spamassassin and see how > good it is. No spamassassin as well. Actually, spending a lot of time on the mail setup is exactly what I did not want to do. I have my hands full with other stuff. But I gladly delegate the lists.open-mesh.net domain to everybody that wants to deal with it. Regards, Marek