On 10/10/2018 01:56 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
However, in general it's better to use DNSBLs at the MTA level,
which uses a lot less resources than implementing them in
Spamassassin. So try and set them up in postfix first.
On 10.10.18 14:09, Grant Taylor wrote:
I conceptually agree.
However, I prefer to do some RBL testing in SpamAssassin because I can
easily check multiple RBLs and tag messages as spam, or reject, based
on spam score. Conversely, most MTA's implement RBLs as a binary pass
/ fail situation. Thus SpamAssassin gives more flexibility and
provides a configurable gray area that MTA's can't do themselves.
note that spamassassin can run at MTA level, refusing mail when it's found
to be sure spam and tagging when it's not.
I for example run spamass-milter with -r 10 (rejects score over 10) at one
machine, and amavisd-milter with "spam_kill_level_maps => 10", along with
postscreen.
This way mail gets refused when listed in DNSBLs, while not when DNSWL (but
still when DNSBL score is higher than DNSWL) and also when SA detects it's
score is over 10.
...clients from internal networks run SA as content_filter (post-queue) so
they don't complain sending mail (SA scanning at MTA level) taked too long.
--
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.
M$ Win's are shit, do not use it !
