John Rudd wrote on 01/22/2007 06:17:48 PM:
As many as you can fit. But I would be very careful about it. Plus, I
would make sure to use \b around the words, so that you're not getting
sub-string matches. For example:
\bsex\b will match sex but not match Wesex.
I can't second this
I am having a problem with our mail server dure to the fact it runs out
of memory when checking for viruses.
The problem is due to the fact that Sophos sweep programs takes up 21MB
which is no problem when it is only running 1 process, but I notice that
it sometimes starts up 10 sweeps
John Rudd wrote:
if($Subject =~ m/\b(sex|microsoft|Watch)\b/ ) {
return action_bounce(bad subject);
}
However, as others have pointed out, it's not generally a good idea.
Spammers change their subjects often enough that you'll have trouble
keeping up. Plus, you'll be very prone to
Kelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if($Subject =~ m/\b(sex|microsoft|Watch)\b/ )
One might say, Watch out for false positives.
Just don't say it in the subject line!
Joseph Brennan
Lead Email Systems Engineer
Columbia University Information Technology
Or, as Kelson was once quoted (and now immortalized on my website since I
laughed so hard)
Can I bounce be looking at keywords in the body without using spamassassin?
Can you? Yes.
Should you? Probably not.
Blocking mail by keyword is considerably more likely to cause false positives
than
You can probably think of more examples.
I always liked the example of the town of Scunthorpe in the UK. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_Problem
My wife used have problems with Hiscock being part of her employer's
domain name.
___
Hi,
recently I started to quarantine spam while I was
testing the SA BotNet plugin.
I needed to get a quick report on the quarantined email in order
to visually confirm that the email was a spam,
so I modified the function send_quarantine_notifications
and created the function
Matthew Schumacher wrote:
I am deliberating over the best way to handle email where two recipients
want different spam settings and can't seem to find a solution I like.
Seemingly there are only two real solutions:
1. Detect the spam and reject it in filter_end which is very clean, but
What happens if you only accept 1 recipient (in filter_recipient) per
message, and tempfail all of the others?
In theory, this should cause every message that gets to the body filters
to have 1 recipient, and thus there should be no conflict between
anti-spam settings, right?
John Rudd wrote:
What happens if you only accept 1 recipient (in filter_recipient) per
message, and tempfail all of the others?
The nth recipient has to wait for n queue intervals to get the message.
If n is 10 and the sender's queue interval is 30 minutes, that can get
pretty annoying.
In
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 03:28:49PM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
1. Detect the spam and reject it in filter_end which is very clean, but
causes problems when there are two recipients, one which wants the
message, and one who wants it to be bounced as spam.
2. Call stream_by_recipient
David F. Skoll wrote:
Our commercial CanIt-PRO product uses a third solution:
3) If all recipients have the same settings and rules, reject the spam
in filter_end. Otherwise, remail copies. If an e-mail originating
from 127.0.0.1 is rejected as spam, we call action_discard instead of
Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
A fourth option is to introduce a spam folder, where you file
suspected spams. We already use this currently. Then if you cannot
reject an email for one user (because another user does want to
receive the email), flag the message to be delivered to the
spam folder.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Matthew Schumacher wrote:
N!! Not silently discard
I don't know if I can bring myself to do that, occasionally we have
problems with false positives, so silently dropping mail would seriously
aggravate the issue. People around here depend on the bounce
Matthew Schumacher wrote:
N!! Not silently discard
Yes, silently discard.
But wait! CanIt, out of the box, *NEVER EVER* rejects or discards
an e-mail unless a human being tells it to.
Now, you can tune the settings so that it will in fact reject or
discard e-mail without
Jason Bertoch [Electronet] wrote:
Could you set sendmail to only accept 1 recipient per message on your inbound
mail, or would this also cause a re-queue? My impression is that the sending
server would resend during the same connection.
The reality is that the sending server will do whatever
David F. Skoll wrote:
Matthew Schumacher wrote:
N!! Not silently discard
Yes, silently discard.
But wait! CanIt, out of the box, *NEVER EVER* rejects or discards
an e-mail unless a human being tells it to.
Now, you can tune the settings so that it will in fact
Matthew Schumacher wrote:
Here is a thought, what about declaring which users accepted and which
rejected in the rejection message. So if recipient A wants everything
tagged and recipient B wants spam rejected, then we reject the message
with Recipient B thinks this is spam (message was
I am having an issue with some spam slipping through. When I check the MSG.0
file from the quarantine against a manual run of the ENTIRE_MESSAGE file from
the quarantine there are rules that are not hit. I am running them manually as
the same user as mimedefang so I don't think it could be a
On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 08:51 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Rudd wrote on 01/22/2007 06:17:48 PM:
As many as you can fit. But I would be very careful about it. Plus, I
would make sure to use \b around the words, so that you're not getting
sub-string matches. For example:
20 matches
Mail list logo
