Re: [Mimedefang] Re: Problem on attachment name
I've sent a bug report to Apple but I don't know if they respond quickly and certainly it can pass a lot of time before all Apple Mail users upgrade. Before this every mimedefang/f-secure server that receives AppleMail mail with spaces on attachment name will fail... Apple confirmed the bug and says they are working on it. Now I really need a temporary workaround. Any hint ? Thank you -- Ing. Andrea Vettori Consulente per l'Information Technology ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] Problems with outgoing bounce messages, unkownuser, plus to many bad files in sendmail queue
I've changed my sendmail.cf Timeout option to these values and notice that only a couple of bounce emails get generated (vs hundreds before) I am not sure if the otpion "O Timeout.queuewarn.dsn=0s" is the one that stops sendmail from sending out those non deliverable messages Do you know if any of these options may cause any unwanted behavior? I realize that this is a sendmail fqa but imagine if someone knows the answer out of the head that will be great help for me. I still see more files in sendmail queue than reported in mailq command. Is there any mimedefang filter code to block these extra files from writing into the queue? Thanks! O Timeout.queuereturn=2d O Timeout.queuereturn.dsn=5h O Timeout.queuewarn=4h O Timeout.queuewarn.dsn=0s ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] Re: compare mimedefang to mailscanner
On 16 Jan 2007 at 12:10, John Rudd wrote: > And I would like to second that statement. I've used both quite a bit > in both home environments and in mission critical production > environments. I don't think MailScanner is an inferior package. With > one exception (the order in which it does its checks) it is VERY good at > attacking the anti-virus/anti-spam problem with the strategy it uses. > It's just not the strategy I prefer. > > MIMEDefang is _also_ VERY good at attacking that problem with its own > strategy. It's just not the same strategy that MailScanner uses. And, > clearly, I prefer MIMEDefang's strategy. The ordering of the checks plus the ability to add more ways to reject also allows MIMEDefang to do less for each e-mail. The vast majority of connections to my box don't ever result in a virus or spam scan, because they are rejected long before that. I don't even use any DNSBL or other outright blocking...every connection is evaluated on its own merits (or lack thereof :). > The one thing I would say is a weakness with MIMEDefang is that, as > Scott suggests, there's a little bit of a learning curve if you want to > strike out on your own. When I started with MIMEDefang I hadn't even *seen* a Perl program before, and it took me very little time to get a system up and running...several weeks at the most. It did take me quite a while to get all my policy coded, but a lot of that time was deciding on what the policy should be. -- Jeff Rife | "Isn't that just great? I can't find a real | relationship...I'm incapable of meaningless | sex...what does that leave me? Oh, my | God...I'm gonna have to learn computers." | -- Jon Cryer, "Partners" ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
RE: [Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to mailscanner
> > > I have been using mimedefang for a couple of years now and just today > > ran across the mailscanner program. On first glance it appears that the > > 2 do about the same thing. Have some of the experts here tried both of > > these and have a comparison as to how they differ? Is it worth my while > > to spend time trying to configure mailscanner? > > The biggest difference between the two is that MIMEDefang, being a milter, > can act on a message DURING the original SMTP conversation thus allowing > rejections, grey/black/whitelisting, and other actions to be taken before > the entire message is even accepted. > > If you REJECT a connection while it is in progress, there's no need to > generate a separate bounce notification after the fact, which will likely > just clog up your outbound mail queue. You just send a rejection to the > connecting server, and drop the connection, effectively slamming > the door on > the spammer. > This brings up the mail reason I'm not using MailScanner. Mail rejected during the SMTP conversation goes back to the sending server. Mail bounced afterwards goes wherever the spammer wants it to go. Google 'backscatter spam'. -- Tim Boyer Director Information Systems and Engineering Projects Denman Tire Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to mailscanner
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, John Rudd wrote: > Kenneth Irving wrote: > > > > > Although I liked MailScanner, I would use it only in equipments with low > > email traffic. Maybe in your equipment, with that email volume, > > it'll work OK. > > > > My experience is exactly the opposite. In an environment with .25M to > 1M emails per day, MailScanner did just fine on little SunBlade 150 > workstations (four of them, load balanced). Sure, the latency (between > accepting a message, and then handing it to the back-line > POP/IMAP/Webmail server) could be up to 10-15 minutes, but it didn't get > any worse than that. > > In contrast, trying to run MIMEDefang on those same systems was > pointless. In order to run enough child processes to keep up with 1-2 > messages per second, the load would shoot so high that it the systems > would stop accepting email. > That's an interesting observation, and shows another difference between these two mail filters: MIMEDefang is great for filtering email on the fly, and you can reject or drop messages during SMTP, while with Mailscanner you can accumulate emails and take more time to process each one, if you don't mind the latency time (which some users do mind... some get very impatient). I find that both, Mailscanner and MIMEDefang are very good mail filters, different but very good. Personally I prefer MIMEDefang, but in a case such as the one John is presenting... I think I would take the same decision. > > One of the reasons why it took 2 years to move from MailScanner to > MIMEDefang, at work, was a) the fallout from trying to do it on that > hardware, b) the upgrade cycle for moving to Sunfire v220's so that the > systems were fast enough to do the checks during the SMTP session. > > > ___ > NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above > message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. > > Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com > MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com > http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang > ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
[Mimedefang] Re: compare mimedefang to mailscanner
Kees Theunissen spake the following on 1/16/2007 2:49 PM: > On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, John Rudd wrote: > >> 3) MIMEDefang lets you specify the order of checks. With MailScanner, you >> HAVE to do SpamAssassin first, and Virus Scanning last. That means you're >> running the very CPU expensive SpamAssassin checks on viruses. With >> MIMEDefang you can set the order just by re-arranging code in your >> mimedefang-filter. > > I'm scanning first for viruses with clamav. After that I use the > expensive SpamAssassin checks only on non virus mails. > That's the order you prefere. > I'm not sure that this is cheaper. > I estimate roughly that I receive about 100 times more spam than > viruses. That means that I'm scanning about 100 spam mails (that > could already have been detected by SpamAssassin, and that still > have to be checked by SpamAssassin anyway) for viruses just to > block a single virus. This 100 to 1 ratio is also expensive. > > Regards, > > Kees. > I agree with you. I have way more spam than viruses. And most of the "viruses" I see lately are phishing attempts caught by clamav. -- MailScanner is like deodorant... You hope everybody uses it, and you notice quickly if they don't ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to mailscanner
Kees Theunissen wrote: > I'm not sure that this [scanning for viruses first] is cheaper. It depends on what you do with the mail. If you discard or reject spam or spam scoring above a threshold, then it's almost certainly cheaper to spam-scan first. If you're only tagging spam but throwing away viruses, it's probably cheaper to virus-scan first. The fact that clamd has phishing signatures muddies the waters a bit; there may be some "viruses" that are really spam. Regards, David. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to mailscanner
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, John Rudd wrote: > 3) MIMEDefang lets you specify the order of checks. With MailScanner, you > HAVE to do SpamAssassin first, and Virus Scanning last. That means you're > running the very CPU expensive SpamAssassin checks on viruses. With > MIMEDefang you can set the order just by re-arranging code in your > mimedefang-filter. I'm scanning first for viruses with clamav. After that I use the expensive SpamAssassin checks only on non virus mails. That's the order you prefere. I'm not sure that this is cheaper. I estimate roughly that I receive about 100 times more spam than viruses. That means that I'm scanning about 100 spam mails (that could already have been detected by SpamAssassin, and that still have to be checked by SpamAssassin anyway) for viruses just to block a single virus. This 100 to 1 ratio is also expensive. Regards, Kees. -- Kees Theunissen F.O.M.-Institute for Plasma Physics Rijnhuizen, Nieuwegein, Netherlands E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tel: (+31|0)306096724, Fax: (+31|0)306031204 ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] Problems with outgoing bounce messages, unkown user, plus to many bad files in sendmail queue
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, An.H.Nguyen wrote:
> Below you'll find my filter code and the manual smtp session output and
> one of the bounce message headers (note that I replaced the actual
> server with mimedefang_server and similarly for [EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
> sub filter_recipient
> {
> my($recip, $sender, $ip, $host, $first, $helo, $rcpt_mailer,
> $rcpt_host, $rcpt_addr) = @_;
>
> my $relay = undef;
> $relay = "internal_server" if ($recip =~ m/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i);
Most of the time $recip will be something like <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Note the < and >. Your regular expression is testing for "@domain.com"
at the _end_ of the string.
Try something like:
$relay = "internal_server" if ($recip =~ m/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>?$/i);
Regards,
Kees.
--
Kees Theunissen
F.O.M.-Institute for Plasma Physics Rijnhuizen, Nieuwegein, Netherlands
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tel: (+31|0)306096724, Fax: (+31|0)306031204
___
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] Re: OT: New Attack/Poor SPAMming programming?
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 01:13:04PM -0600, Ben Kamen wrote: > >Here is a great article about sendmail time-outs (and other antispam > >tricks such as greet pause): > > > >http://www.acme.com/mail_filtering/sendmail_config_frameset.html The information is a bit outdated. Also I don't agree with the "DNSBLs are bad" recommendation (we're blocking over 50% of the mail using DNSBLs here). > My original email asked if anyone else was seeing this... not so much > as "what can I do about it". I've been using sendmail for about 11yrs now. I just did some stats, I'm seeing about 80 disconnects per minute due to command timeout... out of about 6000 simultaneous sendmail connections outstanding. I used to have the command timeout at 10 minutes, so that meant 800 wasted sendmail processes (about 13%) so I reduced it to 2 minutes (your peers have the option to use that timeout to cache outgoing sendmail connections. It's polite to leave it at the maximum recommended MCI_CACHE_TIMEOUT, which is 10 minutes. (But in over 80% of the cases you'd be polite to spammers...) -- Jan-Pieter Cornet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> !! Disclamer: The addressee of this email is not the intended recipient. !! !! This is only a test of the echelon and data retention systems. Please !! !! archive this message indefinitely to allow verification of the logs. !! ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
RE: [Mimedefang] Problems with outgoing bounce messages, unkown user, plus to many bad files in sendmail queue
> I've got many spam emails sent from non existing senders to unkown users and > do not want to generate bounce messages. > All files in sendmail queue was removed on Friday and now (Tuesday) I have > 800+ bounce messages in the queue. Plus, why do I have 9000+ files in the > sendmail queue now? For starters, you might try re-tuning how long sendmail will re-try a message. This will cut down substantially, on "stale" messages in the queue, that are destined for unresponsive or non-existant servers. Sendmail's default for confTO_QUEUERETURN is an absurd 5 days (actually, it's 5 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes). That's 6 days of garbage in your queue. Try setting that to 2 days. You'll see a lot less garbage in your queue, and your users wont have to wait close to a week to find out a valid (but stalled) mail they sent didn't go through. Ken ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to mailscanner
David F. Skoll wrote: John Rudd wrote: Btw: thank you for not squelching this topic. When I tried to have a similar discussion on the MailScanner list, about a year ago, the maintainer pretty much banned the topic from discussion (even though I was, at the time, advocating the mixed approach and not an approach of "abandoning MailScanner"). It has left a lasting bad impression for me. Really? I've worked with Julian on MIME-Tools issues and he seemed pretty pleasant and reasonable to me. (Both MIMEDefang and Mailscanner use MIME-Tools.) Yeah, in general Julian's a great guy, and very open about off-topic conversation on the MS list (general Sendmail config topics, discussions of milters that don't compete with MailScanner, etc.). But I think MIMEDefang was just too close to being a direct competitor ... and I don't think he agreed with me that it could be something that compliments MailScanner instead of competing with MailScanner. I don't think he begrudges MD, I think he just didn't want it discussed on the MS list, even in a complimentary role instead of a competitive role. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
[Mimedefang] Re: compare mimedefang to mailscanner
Les Mikesell spake the following on 1/16/2007 11:39 AM: > I think what you are comparing is whether the example configs you > could find were close enough to what you needed to cut and paste > rather than actual complexity or efficiency > It isn't a matter of adding a config. You have to make sure that one config doesn't smash another over the head. Adding stuff to the filters is just a little more than cut and paste, unless you happen to find one that does "everything" you want. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] Re: compare mimedefang to mailscanner
John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/16/2007 03:10:29 PM: > But the other side of that coin is: if you need that kind of > hand-holding, you might be better off paying for canit-pro. It uses > MIMEDefang at its core (right? I didn't misinterpret that?), and wraps > around that a support/etc. package. I'm willing to bet that it ends up > doing a lot of that kind of "softened learning curve" stuff for you. Yes, CanIt uses MIMEDefang as it's core, wrapped with a web GUI and a database backend for clustering. I'm using CanIt Pro to filter email for 71 school districts in Western NY with great success. I have had very few problems, and Roaring Penguin provides great support. I did set up a MIMEDefang box before investigating CanIt Pro and liked the way it works (see previous messages about milter operation). CanIt Pro has also proved to be very cost effective for our organization in addition to doing a great job filtering mail. Disclaimer: This has been an unsolicited testimonial from a satisfied user. Even though I use CanIt, I read the MD list because I find it fascinating, and I learn a lot, but I don't touch any of the code samples, even though I could since CanIt comes with full source code. -- William Brown Web Development & Messaging Services Technology Services, WNYRIC, Erie 1 BOCES ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] Re: compare mimedefang to mailscanner
David F. Skoll wrote: I'm not trying to say that MIMEDefang is better or worse than Mailscanner. I was just trying to objectively (as much as possible!) compare their behaviours under different load conditions. And I would like to second that statement. I've used both quite a bit in both home environments and in mission critical production environments. I don't think MailScanner is an inferior package. With one exception (the order in which it does its checks) it is VERY good at attacking the anti-virus/anti-spam problem with the strategy it uses. It's just not the strategy I prefer. MIMEDefang is _also_ VERY good at attacking that problem with its own strategy. It's just not the same strategy that MailScanner uses. And, clearly, I prefer MIMEDefang's strategy. The one thing I would say is a weakness with MIMEDefang is that, as Scott suggests, there's a little bit of a learning curve if you want to strike out on your own. I've been writing a mimedefang-filter that has an extensive set of "on/off switches" and "config variables" at the start. With input from multiple people, that might make an interesting way to soften the learning curve (and make it all more usable for non-experts in trying to switch on and off different behaviors). But the other side of that coin is: if you need that kind of hand-holding, you might be better off paying for canit-pro. It uses MIMEDefang at its core (right? I didn't misinterpret that?), and wraps around that a support/etc. package. I'm willing to bet that it ends up doing a lot of that kind of "softened learning curve" stuff for you. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to mailscanner
John Rudd wrote: >> 1) Disk I/O: MIMEDefang will use less disk I/O than Mailscanner >> because you're not queueing every mail message twice. In fact, if >> you have a modern version of Sendmail with SuperSafe set to >> PostMilter and MIMEDefang rejects or tempfails a message, that >> queue file won't be sync'd to disk. > In my experience, this wasn't really a problem. Mailscanner wants your > mqueue.in, mqueue, and scratch area to all be on one partition so that > it can just do "mv" commands to move things around. So you don't really > re-queue much if you don't want to (depending on how you hand things > off to the outgoing sendmail process). Ah, ok. On Solaris, "mv" may be synchronous. On Linux, you really should fsync the directory to ensure the metadata is updated. Also, you were running (as I recall) on a low-end Sun, which typically has lots of disk bandwidth but relatively little CPU power compared to most Intel boxes. In that situation, Mailscanner makes more sense. > Btw: thank you for not squelching this topic. When I tried to have a > similar discussion on the MailScanner list, about a year ago, the > maintainer pretty much banned the topic from discussion (even though I > was, at the time, advocating the mixed approach and not an approach of > "abandoning MailScanner"). It has left a lasting bad impression for me. Really? I've worked with Julian on MIME-Tools issues and he seemed pretty pleasant and reasonable to me. (Both MIMEDefang and Mailscanner use MIME-Tools.) Regards, David. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to mailscanner
David F. Skoll wrote: John Rudd wrote: [...] This actually far outweighs the IO bottleneck of clamd's socket. Hardly any data flows over clamd's socket. MIMEDefang just sends the command: SCAN /path/to/filename and clamd reads the file or files to scan itself. General comments: 1) Disk I/O: MIMEDefang will use less disk I/O than Mailscanner because you're not queueing every mail message twice. In fact, if you have a modern version of Sendmail with SuperSafe set to PostMilter and MIMEDefang rejects or tempfails a message, that queue file won't be sync'd to disk. In my experience, this wasn't really a problem. Mailscanner wants your mqueue.in, mqueue, and scratch area to all be on one partition so that it can just do "mv" commands to move things around. So you don't really re-queue much if you don't want to (depending on how you hand things off to the outgoing sendmail process). But: a) there's some extra complexity in running extra sendmail processes, and only wanting to stop one piece of the puzzle but not all pieces of the puzzle. b) MIMEDefang has a BIG win in that its scratch area can be in memory (via RAM disk or tmpfs), whereas MailScanner really wants/needs to be on physical disk (due to how it stores messages as they're scanned). Regards, David. Btw: thank you for not squelching this topic. When I tried to have a similar discussion on the MailScanner list, about a year ago, the maintainer pretty much banned the topic from discussion (even though I was, at the time, advocating the mixed approach and not an approach of "abandoning MailScanner"). It has left a lasting bad impression for me. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
[Mimedefang] Problems with outgoing bounce messages, unkown user, plus to many bad files in sendmail queue
I've got many spam emails sent from non existing senders to unkown users and
do not want to generate bounce messages.
All files in sendmail queue was removed on Friday and now (Tuesday) I have
800+ bounce messages in the queue. Plus, why do I have 9000+ files in the
sendmail queue now?
I hope Mimedefang can help reducing the problem but I am new to it.
Have I missed anything here? The manual smtp tests indicates that it can
validate recipient users, but many bounce messages still got created (by
localhost (localhost)) and stuck in the queue.
Please advise! Thank You (:
Below you'll find my filter code and the manual smtp session output and one
of the bounce message headers (note that I replaced the actual server with
mimedefang_server and similarly for [EMAIL PROTECTED])
sub filter_recipient
{
my($recip, $sender, $ip, $host, $first, $helo, $rcpt_mailer,
$rcpt_host, $rcpt_addr) = @_;
my $relay = undef;
$relay = "internal_server" if ($recip =~ m/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i);
if ($relay)
{
return md_check_against_smtp_server($sender, $recip,
"mimedefang_server", $relay);
}
return('CONTINUE', "OK"); # accept recipient if dont find relay
}
c:\telnet mimedefang_server 25
220 ESMTP Mailer Ready
helo a.abc.com
250 mimedefang_server Hello client_host [x.x.x.x], pleased to meet you
mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 2.1.0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender ok
rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
550 5.7.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] No such user
rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 2.1.5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Recipient ok
Bounce message header:
-
Return-Path: <g>
Received: from localhost (localhost)by mimedefang_server (8.13.8/8.13.8) id
l0GJSJuE006458;Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:28:19 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:28:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
Full-Name: Mail Delivery Subsystem
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report;
report-type=delivery-status;boundary="l0GJSJuE006458.1168975699/mimedefang_server"
Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)
The original message was received at Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:28:16 -0800 (PST)
from 88-109-190-72.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com [88.109.190.72]
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(reason: 550 5.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown)
- Transcript of session follows -
... while talking to internal_server.:
DATA
<<< 550 5.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown
550 5.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown
<<< 503 5.0.0 Need RCPT (recipient)
___
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] Re: compare mimedefang to mailscanner
Scott Silva wrote: I wanted to do a trial of f-prot. Just installed the rpm for f-prot, added its name to the config file, and now my system is scanning with 4 virus scanners. Took 5 minutes of my valuable time. It took several hours getting mimedefang going on just the smtp checks. I think what you are comparing is whether the example configs you could find were close enough to what you needed to cut and paste rather than actual complexity or efficiency -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] Re: compare mimedefang to mailscanner
Scott Silva wrote: > But can you run multiple virus scanners with mimedefang? Sure. > How will that add to the startup costs of more than one virus scanner? If they are command-line virus-scanners, performance will be terrible. If you have as a requirement the need to run multiple command-line virus-scanners on large quantities of e-mail, then MIMEDefang is the wrong choice. (Well, actually, a non-daemonizable virus-scanner is the wrong choice, but I won't get too deeply into mudslinging. :-)) > I am currently running mimedefang for check_against_smtp_server and > mailscanner with spamassassin for virus scanning and spam. If I add a > supported virus scanner in mailscanner, I just have to add its name to the > config file and reload. How much code do I have to write in mimedefang to do > the same? If the virus scanner is already supported, not much. There are probably examples on the wiki. [...] > Sure, mimedefang is like a swiss army knife. In the right hands, it > can do almost everything. ...but I am no McGyver, so I can't save > the world with just a swiss army knife! I need more tools in my tool > chest! MIMEDefang is not for everyone. I'm not trying to say that MIMEDefang is better or worse than Mailscanner. I was just trying to objectively (as much as possible!) compare their behaviours under different load conditions. -- David. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
[Mimedefang] Re: compare mimedefang to mailscanner
But can you run multiple virus scanners with mimedefang? How will that add to the startup costs of more than one virus scanner? Some virus scanners don't have a socket interface that you can pipe into, and some that do won't let you pipe between them. Multiple virus scanners help quite substantially on many new viruses, as the time lag between detection and signature update can be different between them. I am currently running mimedefang for check_against_smtp_server and mailscanner with spamassassin for virus scanning and spam. If I add a supported virus scanner in mailscanner, I just have to add its name to the config file and reload. How much code do I have to write in mimedefang to do the same? I wanted to do a trial of f-prot. Just installed the rpm for f-prot, added its name to the config file, and now my system is scanning with 4 virus scanners. Took 5 minutes of my valuable time. It took several hours getting mimedefang going on just the smtp checks. Sure, mimedefang is like a swiss army knife. In the right hands, it can do almost everything. ...but I am no McGyver, so I can't save the world with just a swiss army knife! I need more tools in my tool chest! So to end this rant, use the tools you are comfortable with. Both work very well, and you can do much with either one. The only one that can tell you which is better is you, and your usage, skill level, and time available. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to mailscanner
John Rudd wrote: > [...] This actually far outweighs the IO bottleneck of clamd's > socket. Hardly any data flows over clamd's socket. MIMEDefang just sends the command: SCAN /path/to/filename and clamd reads the file or files to scan itself. General comments: 1) Disk I/O: MIMEDefang will use less disk I/O than Mailscanner because you're not queueing every mail message twice. In fact, if you have a modern version of Sendmail with SuperSafe set to PostMilter and MIMEDefang rejects or tempfails a message, that queue file won't be sync'd to disk. 2) CPU: MIMEDefang and Mailscanner probably use similar amounts of CPU time. SpamAssassin and virus-scanners are pigs, no matter how you look at it. :-) 3) Overload: If you are CPU-bound, Mailscanner will handle overload better than MIMEDefang, because there are no "hard" constraints on how long it's allowed to take. During temporary overloads, Mailscanner will just let your queues grow, while MIMEDefang will tempfail mail (and make things worse because of all the retries.) If you are I/O bound, then Mailscanner will probably be worse than MIMEDefang because of the extra queue I/O. Regards, David. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to mailscanner
Kenneth Irving wrote: I've found Sendmail+MIMEDefang+clamd+spamd a very efficient combination. Tried Postfix+MailScanner+clamscan in another computer and it's very slow, because Mailscanner doesn't work as a deamon, and doesn't use Clam as a deamon either, but relies on running clamscan for every email. The overall result is extremely slow. I forgot to respond to this part: This is entirely what I was talking about with "economy of scale". With MailScanner, if you're scanning messages in such small batches, and so infrequently, that you're spending more time with the clamscan start-up/initialization overhead, then it will seem like MailScanner is slow. On the otherhand, if you're scanning 100's of messages per minute, in 100 message batches, then the start-up overhead of clamscan or sweep is so insignificant compared to the actual scanning cost, that you get a HUGE benefit from this economy of scale. This actually far outweighs the IO bottleneck of clamd's socket. MailScanner doesn't have any support for clamd exactly because clamd would slow down MailScanner in a BIG way. (a few years back I tried to do a comparison between MailScanner+clamav_perl_module and MIMEDefang+clamd to see if either could be improved by the other ... and I couldn't -- each of them is going in such a different IO model that you can't really imply something about one's model based on your experiences with the other model... the only answer is: MailScanner is fastest with the perl ClamAV module, and 2nd fastest with clamscan ... but clamd is a significant liability with MailScanner; meanwhile, MIMEDefang is _exactly_ the opposite -- using clamscan with MIMEDefang causes a significant slowdown because you pay the start-up overhead of clamscan with every message ; using the experience of one to try to speed up the other will just lead you to headaches) ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to mailscanner
Kenneth Irving wrote: Although I liked MailScanner, I would use it only in equipments with low email traffic. Maybe in your equipment, with that email volume, it'll work OK. My experience is exactly the opposite. In an environment with .25M to 1M emails per day, MailScanner did just fine on little SunBlade 150 workstations (four of them, load balanced). Sure, the latency (between accepting a message, and then handing it to the back-line POP/IMAP/Webmail server) could be up to 10-15 minutes, but it didn't get any worse than that. In contrast, trying to run MIMEDefang on those same systems was pointless. In order to run enough child processes to keep up with 1-2 messages per second, the load would shoot so high that it the systems would stop accepting email. One of the reasons why it took 2 years to move from MailScanner to MIMEDefang, at work, was a) the fallout from trying to do it on that hardware, b) the upgrade cycle for moving to Sunfire v220's so that the systems were fast enough to do the checks during the SMTP session. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
RE: [Mimedefang] accept() returned invalidsocket (Numerical resultoutof range), try again
Out of 300 connections that I can have without getting this error, 250 are in ESTABLISHED state, and 50 of them are in TIME_OUT state. I cannot go over 300 connections without getting this error, which seems abuserd. I have adjusted my sendmail timeouts, and it has not helped at all. I will attemp to recompile MIMEDefang and libmilter. -Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David F. Skoll Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:54 AM To: mimedefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] accept() returned invalidsocket (Numerical resultoutof range), try again Robert Jackson wrote: > Not sure where I would make the changes from call() to select(), but I > did recompile sendmail with in increased number of FD_SETSIZE. > Chanaged from 256 to 512. Didn't really help. Of course that won't help! You need to recompile libmilter and MIMEDefang. Besides, on most systems, you can't just change FD_SETSIZE and recompile. You may also need to recompile the kernel. What OS are you on? On most modern UNIXes, FD_SETSIZE is at least 1024. > Right now there 3 servers in the pool, and I have to keep the > connection limit to 325 or less. Even if each is up to 500, they get maxed out. See the timeout discussion -- maybe you have a lot of idle sendmails hanging around unnecessarily. Regards, David. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to mailscanner
Mike Campbell wrote: I have been using mimedefang for a couple of years now and just today ran across the mailscanner program. On first glance it appears that the 2 do about the same thing. Have some of the experts here tried both of these and have a comparison as to how they differ? Is it worth my while to spend time trying to configure mailscanner? For what it is worth my mail server currently processes around 500-600 messages a day on a P3 500 mhz machine with 128 meg of memory. The big differences are: 1) MIMEDefang happens during the SMTP session, so you have the option to do things like tempfails (SMTP 4xx return code), which allows you to do Greylisting, or rejections (SMTP 5xx return code). MailScanner needs 2 mail queues (one for pre-scanned mail, one for post-scanned mail), and does not happen during the SMTP session (so your only options are deliver, clean, silently delete (bad), send back a bounce report (bad)). So, MIMEDefang lets you _reject_/refuse-to-accept a virus, a bad attachment, or a high-scoring spam message. MailScanner does not. (this also means that MailScanner has a sometimes significant latency between when it accepts a message, and when that message finally gets to the local recipient; in large environments this latency can be noticeable, and cause complaints from your users) 2) MailScanner gets an economy of scale out of doing HUGE volumes of anti-virus scans in one pass. For example, MailScanner's 2 fastest virus scanners are the command-line sophos sweep, and the command-line clamscan (not clamdscan; clamd significantly slows things down for MailScanner). In contrast, these are very SLOW mechanisms for MIMEDefang, because MIMEDefang doesn't get that economy of scale (with MIMEDefang you really DO want to use clamd). For your 500-600 messages per day, you probably wont really see that economy of scale with MailScanner. 3) MIMEDefang lets you specify the order of checks. With MailScanner, you HAVE to do SpamAssassin first, and Virus Scanning last. That means you're running the very CPU expensive SpamAssassin checks on viruses. With MIMEDefang, you can set the order just by re-arranging code in your mimedefang-filter. 4) MIMEDefang also lets you do other kinds of checks: checks on the relay, checks on the sender, checks on each recipient, all before you do any other spam/virus checks. This lets you do anything from blocking suspicious content, to doing the equivalent of "milter-ahead" to verify that a destination host has the recipient's address (with MailScanner you have to either use milter-ahead, or keep an up-to-date aliases file, or something like that). That said, you CAN use them together. You could use MIMEDefang for fast checks and during-SMTP-session checks (relay checks, helo checks, sender checks, recipient checks, attachment filename checks, maybe clamd anti-virus checks), and then use MailScanner for bulk checks and checks that would slow down your SMTP sessions (other virus scanners, SpamAssassin). This reduces the amount of messages you're submitting to MailScanner (and thus SpamAssassin), and if you do clamd with MIMEDefang you're not going to be spamscanning most of your virus traffic nor bad-attachment traffic. Personally, I stopped using MailScanner at home 2 years ago, and stopped using MailScanner at work 2 months ago. I greatly prefer MIMEDefang. But, it does require a bit more CPU (so that you can do all of those checks on a per-message basis, and during the SMTP session before it times out). But your traffic levels shouldn't be a big burden to most machines. MailScanner is a great package. I just prefer to have the option to reject content instead of cleaning/marking it and then delivering it. (and, to be fair, I will probably stop using MIMEDefang at home, in the not so distant future; I am switching MTA's from Sendmail to CommuniGate Pro; CGP doesn't use the milter interface, but uses a plugin interface of a different kind ... so I'm in the process of building up the infrastructure for those plugins; it's nothing against MIMEDefang -- if CGP had a means of using milters, I would keep using MIMEDefang with CGP) ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to mailscanner
I've found Sendmail+MIMEDefang+clamd+spamd a very efficient combination. Tried Postfix+MailScanner+clamscan in another computer and it's very slow, because Mailscanner doesn't work as a deamon, and doesn't use Clam as a deamon either, but relies on running clamscan for every email. The overall result is extremely slow. Although I liked MailScanner, I would use it only in equipments with low email traffic. Maybe in your equipment, with that email volume, it'll work OK. Today I'm using sendmail+mimedefang+clamd+spamd on a Pentium II 400 MHz with 384 Mb RAM and it is handling between 1 to 2 emails per day without problem. That would be absolutely impossible to handle with Mailscanner unless I used a better server. Hope you find the expirience useful. best regards Kenneth On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Mike Campbell wrote: > I have been using mimedefang for a couple of years now and just today > ran across the mailscanner program. On first glance it appears that the > 2 do about the same thing. Have some of the experts here tried both of > these and have a comparison as to how they differ? Is it worth my while > to spend time trying to configure mailscanner? > > For what it is worth my mail server currently processes around 500-600 > messages a day on a P3 500 mhz machine with 128 meg of memory. > > -- > > Thanks, > Mike Campbell > > > > ___ > NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above > message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. > > Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com > MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com > http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang > ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
RE: [Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to mailscanner
> I have been using mimedefang for a couple of years now and just today > ran across the mailscanner program. On first glance it appears that the > 2 do about the same thing. Have some of the experts here tried both of > these and have a comparison as to how they differ? Is it worth my while > to spend time trying to configure mailscanner? The biggest difference between the two is that MIMEDefang, being a milter, can act on a message DURING the original SMTP conversation thus allowing rejections, grey/black/whitelisting, and other actions to be taken before the entire message is even accepted. If you REJECT a connection while it is in progress, there's no need to generate a separate bounce notification after the fact, which will likely just clog up your outbound mail queue. You just send a rejection to the connecting server, and drop the connection, effectively slamming the door on the spammer. With mail scanner, you've already received the message in full (and said "thank you very much" to the spammer), before you even begin looking at what you've just received. Ken ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] New to Mimedefang
That is standard for every install of MD that I have ever done (short of not having a few of the perl modules that I installed also). What are you showing below that you think is a problem? Cam. On Tue, January 16, 2007 08:59, R.Linga Reddy wrote: > *** Virus scanner detection results: > H+BEDV 'antivir' NO (not found) > Vexira 'vascan'NO (not found) > NAI 'uvscan'NO (not found) > BDC 'bdc' NO (not found) > Sophos 'sweep' NO (not found) > TREND'vscan' NO (not found) > CLAMSCAN 'clamav'YES - /usr/local/bin/clamscan > AVP 'AvpLinux' NO (not found) > AVP5 'aveclient' NO (not found) > KAVSCANNER 'kavscanner' NO (not found) > CSAV 'csav' NO (not found) > FSAV 'fsav' NO (not found) > FPROT'f-prot'NO (not found) > SOPHIE 'sophie'NO (not found) > NVCC 'nvcc' NO (not found) > CLAMD'clamd' YES - /usr/local/sbin/clamd > TROPHIE 'trophie' NO (not found) > > > Make sure clamd runs as the defang user! > ...and make sure you use clamd version 0.67 or higher. > > > Found Mail::SpamAssassin. You may use spam_assassin_* functions > Did not find Anomy::HTMLCleaner. Do not use anomy_clean_html() > Found HTML::Parser. You may use append_html_boilerplate() > > > Note: SpamAssassin, HTML::Parser and Anomy::HTMLCleaner are > detected at run-time, so if you install or remove any of those modules, > you do not need to re-run ./configure and make a new mimedefang.pl. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
[Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to mailscanner
I have been using mimedefang for a couple of years now and just today ran across the mailscanner program. On first glance it appears that the 2 do about the same thing. Have some of the experts here tried both of these and have a comparison as to how they differ? Is it worth my while to spend time trying to configure mailscanner? For what it is worth my mail server currently processes around 500-600 messages a day on a P3 500 mhz machine with 128 meg of memory. -- Thanks, Mike Campbell ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] New to Mimedefang
This is not a problem - you do not understand the output. It is telling you that it can search for any of the listed virus scanners, and successfully found two of them. This is all informational output. Paul. >>> "R.Linga Reddy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 16/01/2007 14:59 >>> Hi Steffen plz see below the problem *** Virus scanner detection results: H+BEDV 'antivir' NO (not found) Vexira 'vascan'NO (not found) NAI 'uvscan'NO (not found) BDC 'bdc' NO (not found) Sophos 'sweep' NO (not found) TREND'vscan' NO (not found) CLAMSCAN 'clamav'YES - /usr/local/bin/clamscan AVP 'AvpLinux' NO (not found) AVP5 'aveclient' NO (not found) KAVSCANNER 'kavscanner' NO (not found) CSAV 'csav' NO (not found) FSAV 'fsav' NO (not found) FPROT'f-prot'NO (not found) SOPHIE 'sophie'NO (not found) NVCC 'nvcc' NO (not found) CLAMD'clamd' YES - /usr/local/sbin/clamd TROPHIE 'trophie' NO (not found) Make sure clamd runs as the defang user! ...and make sure you use clamd version 0.67 or higher. Found Mail::SpamAssassin. You may use spam_assassin_* functions Did not find Anomy::HTMLCleaner. Do not use anomy_clean_html() Found HTML::Parser. You may use append_html_boilerplate() Note: SpamAssassin, HTML::Parser and Anomy::HTMLCleaner are detected at run-time, so if you install or remove any of those modules, you do not need to re-run ./configure and make a new mimedefang.pl. -- --- Paul Murphy Head of I.T. Argenta Discovery Tel. 01279 645 554 Fax. 01279 645 646 ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] New to Mimedefang
R.Linga Reddy wrote: > plz see below the problem There is no problem. Those messages are purely for information. Continue building. -- David. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] New to Mimedefang
Hi Steffen plz see below the problem *** Virus scanner detection results: H+BEDV 'antivir' NO (not found) Vexira 'vascan'NO (not found) NAI 'uvscan'NO (not found) BDC 'bdc' NO (not found) Sophos 'sweep' NO (not found) TREND'vscan' NO (not found) CLAMSCAN 'clamav'YES - /usr/local/bin/clamscan AVP 'AvpLinux' NO (not found) AVP5 'aveclient' NO (not found) KAVSCANNER 'kavscanner' NO (not found) CSAV 'csav' NO (not found) FSAV 'fsav' NO (not found) FPROT'f-prot'NO (not found) SOPHIE 'sophie'NO (not found) NVCC 'nvcc' NO (not found) CLAMD'clamd' YES - /usr/local/sbin/clamd TROPHIE 'trophie' NO (not found) Make sure clamd runs as the defang user! ...and make sure you use clamd version 0.67 or higher. Found Mail::SpamAssassin. You may use spam_assassin_* functions Did not find Anomy::HTMLCleaner. Do not use anomy_clean_html() Found HTML::Parser. You may use append_html_boilerplate() Note: SpamAssassin, HTML::Parser and Anomy::HTMLCleaner are detected at run-time, so if you install or remove any of those modules, you do not need to re-run ./configure and make a new mimedefang.pl. At 06:34 PM 16/01/07, you wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, R.Linga Reddy wrote: I installing mimedefang while configuring the mimedefang i am facing below problem What is the problem? - -- Steffen Kaiser -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBRazNRugJIbZtwg6XAQLywwgAk7zK2CmDb8RG71STA9f+lBQMf36fxORx jvS42yOooPuqs9iJ9rZQTFK8QzCwjERmFBTIG41jzJ7UUG3OsRPSwyYDnyUSPqNf aexQmsBiAbEez5cXa+mu9ouXtbqXGc/sG8KrVq8WnuNz1l65Akp/YNLuhLOcw1de WM7IIm1k784OhBN3vut1m1y1d2uI4JP/+6bgdr0SQDuy5ZHXaGOJpILT/A7y7tLt PuM0d4Ryu0j1xqF5wiYbf6pjxl7nzmBtKPbiuDfnmTXA33UfCkojDxxpvvyxdzkz l/QkODSWLYCWEe6jNTTULmxXkRNhikCttQLef2aVob79ZB0dVTXfAQ== =qJT8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] New to Mimedefang
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, R.Linga Reddy wrote: I installing mimedefang while configuring the mimedefang i am facing below problem What is the problem? - -- Steffen Kaiser -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBRazNRugJIbZtwg6XAQLywwgAk7zK2CmDb8RG71STA9f+lBQMf36fxORx jvS42yOooPuqs9iJ9rZQTFK8QzCwjERmFBTIG41jzJ7UUG3OsRPSwyYDnyUSPqNf aexQmsBiAbEez5cXa+mu9ouXtbqXGc/sG8KrVq8WnuNz1l65Akp/YNLuhLOcw1de WM7IIm1k784OhBN3vut1m1y1d2uI4JP/+6bgdr0SQDuy5ZHXaGOJpILT/A7y7tLt PuM0d4Ryu0j1xqF5wiYbf6pjxl7nzmBtKPbiuDfnmTXA33UfCkojDxxpvvyxdzkz l/QkODSWLYCWEe6jNTTULmxXkRNhikCttQLef2aVob79ZB0dVTXfAQ== =qJT8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
[Mimedefang] New to Mimedefang
Dear All, I installing mimedefang while configuring the mimedefang i am facing below problem Please help me in this record Regards, Linga Reddy *** Virus scanner detection results: H+BEDV 'antivir' NO (not found) Vexira 'vascan'NO (not found) NAI 'uvscan'NO (not found) BDC 'bdc' NO (not found) Sophos 'sweep' NO (not found) TREND'vscan' NO (not found) CLAMSCAN 'clamav'YES - /usr/local/bin/clamscan AVP 'AvpLinux' NO (not found) AVP5 'aveclient' NO (not found) KAVSCANNER 'kavscanner' NO (not found) CSAV 'csav' NO (not found) FSAV 'fsav' NO (not found) FPROT'f-prot'NO (not found) SOPHIE 'sophie'NO (not found) NVCC 'nvcc' NO (not found) CLAMD'clamd' YES - /usr/local/sbin/clamd TROPHIE 'trophie' NO (not found) Make sure clamd runs as the defang user! ...and make sure you use clamd version 0.67 or higher. Found Mail::SpamAssassin. You may use spam_assassin_* functions Did not find Anomy::HTMLCleaner. Do not use anomy_clean_html() Found HTML::Parser. You may use append_html_boilerplate() Note: SpamAssassin, HTML::Parser and Anomy::HTMLCleaner are detected at run-time, so if you install or remove any of those modules, you do not need to re-run ./configure and make a new mimedefang.pl. ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
Re: [Mimedefang] filtering words from the subject line
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can I find a MD rule somewhere on how to filter out a list of unwanted
words in the subject header from incoming E-mails?
See the list archive, why this is a bad idea.
If you insist in using it:
Add this conditional into the filter_begin() function:
if($Subject =~ m// ) {
return action_bounce("bad subject");
}
Put your regex between the slashes of m//.
Bye,
- --
Steffen Kaiser
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBRayJI+gJIbZtwg6XAQKDjAgAo9SUuL0w7QDDEb+aKmQ91NYr74oD7DI2
1KkDKmB8SqeQyeNFPyeYI6I1ePVNTBpGojgtOMCnZrQSUgn/fRPYcAkstn6E9zjB
d4A1tzFS/I2W/kqR4OGslc+gD7oB9sPulE5sjpaqpFkfc6siPZ/OYv3+Va60kwyV
i3mXjY4fePNF6z51ObcDs/JB8GEyR5ik3eu/rJ5kSuyerMns09yJpcH2DVUcZAyt
BAPazNPUhSj3RhNUa8FdPI3klmHyN5yndiJjeX0jXNK+ZWyxq4umP9XNKZFVmgZ0
oUPJqob1/Ej753f6NB9T/n7kzuU5q+5kjLGPQFOPVtCiA3yCzDOa1A==
=rsjC
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
