Dear Robert et al, Robert Brooks wrote: [..] > Mark, > > many thanks for this. I'd not thought about the problems with > performance. However it is precisely because this is prequeue that I am > interested.
Me too, I'm interested to have some of the tests done pre-queue. > > I'm keen to avoid accepting email which is not going to be delivered. > I'd rather the server which has the message is responsible for bouncing > than us creating back-scatter or silently failing to deliver. Thats one point for which I'm interested in pre-queue filtering > > Also ultimately I'd like users to be able to chose who they do and don't > accept email from. Just because something is blacklisted doesn't > necessarily mean it's spam (or that all users wish this address to be > blacklisted). There can be personal reasons for blacklisting or > commercial emailers that aren't diligent with unsubscription requests. I turned off BL filtering in SA and enabled them in Postfix (reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net etc.). This checks are relatively cheap, it does not questioning the expensive SA. I also applied some basic sender and header checking with postfix which are also cheap and quite successful. The result of this is quite a lower load on the mailserver and properly rejected mails for the methods which are "dangerous" for false positives. Hope this helps. Thanks, Luc ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ AMaViS-user mailing list AMaViS-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amavis.org/amavis-faq.php3 AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/howto/
