On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 16:45:17 +0200 Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> wrote:
> On 2021-07-05 10:06:24 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > A more sensible antispam filter might consider a mismatched reverse > > to be one potential factor in deciding whether a given message is > > "spam". In the absence of any other factors, it shouldn't be enough > > to reject a message. But if the same message has other risk > > factors, then together they might be enough to justify that > > judgment. > > Unfortunately postfix cannot do that (it just has > reject_unknown_client_hostname, but otherwise doesn't allow > the user to control how the information is obtained and used). > Exim4 can either reject or add a warning header, which spamassassin can be told to look for. Having said that, I gave up on SA after a couple of months. That really *was* high-maintenance. I also prefer not to filter on content, as it's difficult to avoid false positives. -- Joe
