Re: Intermediate Relay checked against RBL

2008-11-21 Thread Cedric Knight, GreenNet
Oliver Welter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   2.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in
 bl.spamcop.net [Blocked - see
 http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?82.113.121.16]
   1.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB  RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web
  server [82.113.121.16 listed in
 dnsbl.sorbs.net]

In this situation, I'd add
  trusted_networks 82.113.121.16/32
to local.cf.  It looks like the O2 gateway has genuinely been abused.

If you are POP-before-SMTP authentication,
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/POPAuthPlugin can add to
trusted_networks automatically.

   1.3 MISSING_SUBJECTMissing Subject: header
   0.1 RDNS_NONE  Delivered to trusted network by a host
 with no rDNS
   1.5 MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER  Message-Id was added by a relay

These look like some problem with the MUA.  You might want to check
why the client isn't adding Message-Id and Subject headers.

HTH

CK



Re: Bayes - one database per user or one for everybody?

2007-10-24 Thread Cedric Knight, GreenNet
Hi

I've a possibly related enquiry to an old one below, and would be
grateful for advice or pointers.

We haven't actually *needed* Bayes thanks to greylisting, remote URI
lookups and lots of custom rules.  While a few users are interested in
a filter they can manually train, most wouldn't bother, and most
receive similar types of ham mail, which makes me wonder whether a
single group-writeable database is best, currently
/var/amavis/.spamassassin/bayes, probably without bayes_auto_learn.

However, as some tech-savvy users do want their own Bayes db, one
thought was to use the default user .spamassassin folders but have
symbolic links to the central database for most users.  Is this crazy?
Has anyone tried it?  What are the implications on disk I/O of the
various options, including several GB worth of individual databases?
Is there anything I particularly need to look out for in terms of
performance on the live server?

The basic problem is that AFAIK bayes_path can't be set as a user
preference (global and then overridden by say a user preferences
database), as would be needed to have some users use a communal
database, and some their own.  I can see bayes_sql_override_username
could achieve a similar function, but that necessarily rules out
having DBM databases.  Users here do have their own home directories,
and would have ability to train via sending as MIME attachment, but no
shell access.  I realise as I write this that my wish is even more
difficult because amavis doesn't extract or pass user information to
SA in any case, and it would presumably mean running spamc in
procmailrc...  Is there any way of checking two dbs, one global and
one per-user?

A lot of questions, and any pointers or experience is appreciated.

One further one: are per-user databases important for accuracy of
auto-whitelisting?

Thanks

Ced

On 11 July 2007, Micha³ Jêczalik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hello,

 I'm migrating to SQL Bayes storage method. I have plenty of email
 accounts. By this time, all of them had their own database in their
 home directories. Such approach unfortunately consumes a lot of disk
 space, so now I'm thinking about bayes_sql_override_username option,
 which allows me to have one single database for all.

 I wonder if it's better to have a single database (which probably
 could be larger than the size of 8MB per user I allowed with DBM
 storage method) or keep per-user ones?

 So, what are the advantages of a single database? And does it make
any
 sense to make it larger? Maybe 8MB of tokens is simply enough and it
 doesn't pay to use more resources to seek in a larger base? Are
there
 any security or privacy problems with this setup?

 BTW, users don't have access to their databases, they are unable to
 feed any spam/ham manually, so loosing this ability is not a problem
 for me.

 Regards,
 --
 Michal Jeczalik, +48.603.64.62.97