Re: Fwd: Re: Q about short-circuit over ruling blacklisting rule

[me]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:12:42 +0100, JKL wrote:

I know this is off-topic but is there a way for a third party 
programme

to silently drop spam from delivery?


enable sieve on docecot-lda

and see this http://sieve.info/

Re: Fwd: Re: Q about short-circuit over ruling blacklisting rule

[Patrick Ben Koetter]

* JKL :
> 
> On 01/17/2011 09:29 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> > On 1/17/11 3:27 PM, JKL wrote:
> >> Hi there,
> >>
> >>  Why would this be delivered into the user mailbox when the Sender
> >> address is blacklisted by the user?  Did I misunderstand the
> >> short-circuit effect?
> >>
> >> Best wishes.
> >>
> >>
> > spamassassin doesn't do anything about delivery. it just marks the
> > headers.
> >
> >
> Hi,
> 
> Thank-you for pointing this out.  Naïvely, I thought I could use
> Postfix to pass the mail to spamc and then have it drop it, instead of
> sending it onto Dovecot LDA for delivery.  Clearly, this is not the way
> :(  Back to the drawing board.
> 
> I know this is off-topic but is there a way for a third party programme
> to silently drop spam from delivery? 

There are several: MimeDefang, Spamassassin-Milter and amavisd-new come to
mind.

MimeDefang and Spamassassin-Milter work as MILTERS (see: smtpd_milters or
MILTER_README in Postfix).

amavisd-new may be integrated either as MILTER or as content_filter or
smtpd_proxy_filter using either SMTP or LMTP. You probably want amavisd-new if
you also want a content filter to identify and classify other mail content
categories (virus, banned, spam, undecipherable and, surprise, clean
messages) 

p@rick

-- 
state of mind
Digitale Kommunikation

http://www.state-of-mind.de

Franziskanerstraße 15  Telefon +49 89 3090 4664
81669 München  Telefax +49 89 3090 4666

Amtsgericht MünchenPartnerschaftsregister PR 563

Re: Fwd: Re: Q about short-circuit over ruling blacklisting rule

[Bowie Bailey]

On 1/17/2011 4:12 PM, JKL wrote:
> On 01/17/2011 09:29 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>> On 1/17/11 3:27 PM, JKL wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>>  Why would this be delivered into the user mailbox when the Sender
>>> address is blacklisted by the user?  Did I misunderstand the
>>> short-circuit effect?
>>>
>>> Best wishes.
>>>
>>>
>> spamassassin doesn't do anything about delivery. it just marks the
>> headers.
>>
>>
> Hi,
>
> Thank-you for pointing this out.  Naïvely, I thought I could use
> Postfix to pass the mail to spamc and then have it drop it, instead of
> sending it onto Dovecot LDA for delivery.  Clearly, this is not the way
> :(  Back to the drawing board.
>
> I know this is off-topic but is there a way for a third party programme
> to silently drop spam from delivery? 

Generally, the way it works is like this:

1) SA scores the message
2) Your delivery agent looks at the score and decides whether to
deliver, quarantine, or drop the message

-- 
Bowie

Re: Q about short-circuit over ruling blacklisting rule

[David F. Skoll]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:12:42 +0100
JKL  wrote:

> I know this is off-topic but is there a way for a third party
> programme to silently drop spam from delivery?

You could use a milter such as MIMEDefang (www.mimedefang.org).

Although it's primarily used by Sendmail admins, it does work with
Postfix (with some minor Sendmail-dependant functionality unavailable.)

Regards,

David.

Fwd: Re: Q about short-circuit over ruling blacklisting rule

[JKL]

On 01/17/2011 09:29 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 1/17/11 3:27 PM, JKL wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>>  Why would this be delivered into the user mailbox when the Sender
>> address is blacklisted by the user?  Did I misunderstand the
>> short-circuit effect?
>>
>> Best wishes.
>>
>>
> spamassassin doesn't do anything about delivery. it just marks the
> headers.
>
>
Hi,

Thank-you for pointing this out.  Naïvely, I thought I could use
Postfix to pass the mail to spamc and then have it drop it, instead of
sending it onto Dovecot LDA for delivery.  Clearly, this is not the way
:(  Back to the drawing board.

I know this is off-topic but is there a way for a third party programme
to silently drop spam from delivery? 

Regards.

Re: Q about short-circuit over ruling blacklisting rule

[Michael Scheidell]

On 1/17/11 3:27 PM, JKL wrote:

Hi there,

 Why would this be delivered into the user mailbox when the Sender
address is blacklisted by the user?  Did I misunderstand the
short-circuit effect?

Best wishes.



spamassassin doesn't do anything about delivery. it just marks the headers.



--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
ISN: 1259*1300
>*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation

   * Certified SNORT Integrator
   * 2008-9 Hot Company Award Winner, World Executive Alliance
   * Five-Star Partner Program 2009, VARBusiness
   * Best in Email Security,2010: Network Products Guide
   * King of Spam Filters, SC Magazine 2008

__
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r). 
For Information please see http://www.secnap.com/products/spammertrap/
__  

Q about short-circuit over ruling blacklisting rule

[JKL]

Hi there,

Why would this be delivered into the user mailbox when the Sender
address is blacklisted by the user?  Did I misunderstand the
short-circuit effect?

Best wishes.




X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=99.3 required=4.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
SHORTCIRCUIT,USER_IN_BLACKLIST shortcircuit=spam autolearn=disabled
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Virus: _CLAMAVRESULT_
X-Spam-Report:
* -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at
http://www.dnswl.org/, low
* trust
* [204.16.252.94 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* 0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run, due to a shortcircuited rule
* 100 USER_IN_BLACKLIST From: address is in the user's black-list
Delivered-To: gt...@test.info

Mon Jan 17 21:14:27 2011 [5769] info: config: failed to parse line,
skipping, in "(no file)": bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spa 10
Mon Jan 17 21:14:27 2011 [5769] info: config: failed to parse line,
skipping, in "(no file)": bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spa 10
Mon Jan 17 21:14:27 2011 [5769] info: spamd: processing message
<4d34a31d.7050...@klunky.co.uk> for gt...@test.info:5002
Mon Jan 17 21:14:27 2011 [5769] info: spamd: identified spam (99.3/4.0)
for gt...@test.info:5002 in 0.0 seconds, 1226 bytes.
Mon Jan 17 21:14:27 2011 [5769] info: spamd: result: Y 99 -
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SHORTCIRCUIT,USER_IN_BLACKLIST
scantime=0.0,size=1226,user=gt...@test.info,uid=5002,required_score=4.0,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=38029,mid=<4d34a31d.7050...@klunky.co.uk>,autolearn=disabled,shortcircuit=spam

+-++--++
| username| preference |
value   

| prefid |
+-++--++
| gt...@test.info | blacklist_from | j...@klunky.co.uk 

Re: spamc/spamd using IPv6?

[Chris Conn]

Hello,

Why use the link-local address?

Have a look at this thread;

http://www.mail-archive.com/users@spamassassin.apache.org/msg58685.html



Link local is all I have ;) I know next to nothing about v6, but it is
coming... so testing things.

Off topic: I have currently one fixed IPv4 address, and several hosts
behind it with NAT. Do I need separate IPv6 addresses for each machine
later? Will the ISP provide them with please? I guess...



Well,

You might want to start reading about IPv6 before you attempt to use it. 
 Just an idea ;)  Good on you for trying I guess.


And very off topic indeed; your ISP will in all likelyhood assign you 
with a mind-bogglingly huge amount of IP space, if you read the outline 
of IPv6 vs IPv4 you will soon realize this.


Good luck,

Chris

Re: spamc/spamd using IPv6?

[Jari Fredriksson]

On 17.1.2011 16:47, Chris Conn wrote:
> On 2011-01-15 14:47, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>>
>> I just assigned  records to my DNS, and spamc/spamd fails.
>>
>> I have a DNS alias spamd for a server.
>>
>> jarif@lancaster:~$ host spamd
>> spamd.fredriksson.dy.fi is an alias for lancaster.fredriksson.dy.fi.
>> lancaster.fredriksson.dy.fi has address 10.123.29.113
>> lancaster.fredriksson.dy.fi has IPv6 address fe80::20c:29ff:fe28:8af
>>
>> Now my log is filled with
>>
>> Jan 15 21:46:42 lancaster spamc[17968]: connect to spamd on
>> fe80::20c:29ff:fe28:8af failed, retrying (#16 of 100): Invalid argument
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Why use the link-local address?
> 
> Have a look at this thread;
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/users@spamassassin.apache.org/msg58685.html
> 

Link local is all I have ;) I know next to nothing about v6, but it is
coming... so testing things.

Off topic: I have currently one fixed IPv4 address, and several hosts
behind it with NAT. Do I need separate IPv6 addresses for each machine
later? Will the ISP provide them with please? I guess...

-- 

I think we are in Rats' Alley where the dead men lost their bones.
-- T.S. Eliot



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: spamc/spamd using IPv6?

[Chris Conn]

On 2011-01-15 14:47, Jari Fredriksson wrote:


I just assigned  records to my DNS, and spamc/spamd fails.

I have a DNS alias spamd for a server.

jarif@lancaster:~$ host spamd
spamd.fredriksson.dy.fi is an alias for lancaster.fredriksson.dy.fi.
lancaster.fredriksson.dy.fi has address 10.123.29.113
lancaster.fredriksson.dy.fi has IPv6 address fe80::20c:29ff:fe28:8af

Now my log is filled with

Jan 15 21:46:42 lancaster spamc[17968]: connect to spamd on
fe80::20c:29ff:fe28:8af failed, retrying (#16 of 100): Invalid argument

Any ideas?



Hello,

Why use the link-local address?

Have a look at this thread;

http://www.mail-archive.com/users@spamassassin.apache.org/msg58685.html

Chris

Re: SARE and RulesDuJour still relevant

[Benny Pedersen]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:43:16 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
 wrote:

> On 14.01.11 23:19, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> meta SPF_NICE_PASS (SPF_HELO_PASS && SPF_PASS)
> 
> I don't see any benefit of this rule, do you?

it only hits ham here, never spam, so wanted to know if that same in
public corpus, in my own testing its usefull with ham since most spammers
can get SPF_PASS and not much spam have SPF_HELO_PASS at the same time

Re: SARE and RulesDuJour still relevant

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:04:49 -1000, "Warren Togami Jr."
>  wrote:
> 
> > Anyone else have effective local rules?  Please let me know and I'll put
> 
> > them into the nightly masscheck for testing.

On 14.01.11 23:19, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> meta SPF_NICE_PASS (SPF_HELO_PASS && SPF_PASS)

I don't see any benefit of this rule, do you?
-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Nothing is fool-proof to a talented fool.