KLaM Postmaster a écrit : > mouss wrote: >> some uses of header and body checks: >> - reject "banned attachments" >> - detect forged Received headers >> - detect some backscatter (see the BACKSCATTER README) > I gather that all of these are well described in the BACKSCATTER README, are > there any other sources that might be worth a look? > >> your FPs... >> > Sorry for being dumb, but what are FPs?
False Positive. in spam filtering context, an FP is when your filter mis-classifies a legitimate message as spam. >> - most people use the default setup. so this is the setup that has been >> widely tested and validated. >> > My trouble here was that I haven't found a consistent default setup. I was referring to smtpd_delay_reject=yes. > The setup that came with my Linux distribution was designed for the > local desktop machine and did not seem to be suitable for a server. >> the codes are defined in the RFCs ;-p >> > OK, I should have known that. :-! >>> 3) Is it possible to replace the virtual_mailbox_maps = >>> hash:/etc/postfix/vmailbox with something like proxy maps such as >>> virtual_mailbox_maps = proxy:unix:passwd.byname and if so how would >>> implement this using Dovecot as the LDA/ MDA >> virtual_mailbox_maps is for addresses in virtual_mailbox_domains. >> passwd.byname is for unix users. do not mix these. >> > Sorry, I asked my question poorly and provided an even poorer exemplar. > My objective here was to see if there was some way of avoiding having > two lists of addresses/mail boxes, the vmailbox table and the Dovecot > user_db file. Use a db type that is supported by both postfix and dovecot. > What I was trying to get at is that Dovecot has a look up function for > addresses using its auth_master function. Is that accessible from > Postfix, and if so how? 'postconf -n' will tell you which map types your postfix supports. but dovecot-auth is not one of them. > I am trying to make this easy to administer for a total non-techie, as I > may not be around. you could try mysql. >> >> The "tradition" here is to show output of 'postconf -n' instead of >> main.cf. but I'm skipping it anyway... >> > I did that, but the output seemed bigger than the stuff I appended, but > if the convention is "postconf -n" then I will do that in future, thanks > for the heads up. > Etiquette question, should I post to the mailing list alone or to both > the list and the respondent (in this case mouss). depends on people. I personally don't care.
