List,
I have looked through the list-archives and although I have seen several
threads on the following issue, I don't feel like they were fully
concluded, so would like to get an opinion now if possible.

Dspam as a spam filter is working great, and we are seeing good results in
our testing.  However, we are struggling a bit with getting the accounts
to work the way we want them to.

My goal is to avoid a massive amount of unnecessary users from being
created by spammers who mail to hundreds of made-up [EMAIL PROTECTED]  I also
want to maintain the ability of users to create special addresses for
individual online accounts, such as [EMAIL PROTECTED], but have those map
back to the user in dspam so only a single account is necessary for each
user.

- I have postfix and dspam running with mysql (virtual uid support) on
debian.
- I have the 'recipient_delimiter = -' set in postfix
- I have users who use a lot of aliases such as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- I have virtualmaps in postfix that look like this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@domain [EMAIL PROTECTED]  # This is to prevent [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] etc.
- I then have a transport map in place to transport all mail for a given
domain to the message-store which hosts it.

Here is how I would like it to work:
- Postfix sees [EMAIL PROTECTED] and sends it on to dspam.
- Dspam recognizes that this is user and not user-amazon and processes it
accordingly.
- Dspam hands it back to postfix, and postfix delivers it appropriately.

I know in dspam, you have 'EnablePlusedDetail' setting.  When I set to on,
and test with [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything works fine.  But it doesn't
work with a minus "-" sign.

Does anyone have any recommendations for getting around this problem?

In the previous threads, some posters mentioned front-ending dspam with a
separate postfix instance.  I am not opposed to doing this, but would like
to see what other options are available.

If the front-end method would be best, does anyone care to share how this
worked well for them?

Regards,
Sean

Reply via email to