DJ Lucas a écrit : > mouss wrote: >> the question is: does the symantec device reject spam or does it "tag >> and deliver" or "quarantine". it should not reject mail since you have >> accepted it. > Honestly, I'm not even sure what device he has, in fact, I'm not > familiar with any Symantec hardware products. :-/ That said, for the > site in question, I've manually thrown a few obvious (or rather self > written to what I believe to be obvious) spam messages at it, and have > not been able to get a 4xx or 5xx response from it. I've even went so > far as to test simulated backscatter messages, and nil. It seems that > as long as the @example.com part matches, it accepts everything. In > early testing, those probing messages were followed by the admin's > response of "Should I have received this?" indicating that the catchall > is doing it's job. > While I think that I am capable of being fairly creative, and just a bit > OT, is there any type of pre-made tool out there to test the > effectiveness of a spam filter? If so, then I could throw that at it > and see what I get. >
you can test with EICAR and GTUBE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eicar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTUBE but testing is not enough: the admin could change his setup. so you must have an agreement that is documented (so that if the admin is replaced..., a new admin knows what not to do). > <Snip> >>> reject_unauth_pipelining, >>> >> >> this is useless. >> >> > It will be removed. Thanks. >>> reject_non_fqdn_recipient, >>> >> >> put reject_unauth_destination here. >> >> > before the RBLs..save both processing and bandwidth. Good catch. it's also safer. you don't risk becoming an open relay in case of a bad entry in a map... >>> reject_unknown_recipient_domain >>> >> >> This is useless. >> >> > OK >>> ... >>> # End /etc/postfix/main.cf >>> >>> >>> > <Snip> >> without relay_recipient_maps, anyth...@example1.com will be accepted. >> you can use: >> >> relay_recipient_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/otherdomains >> >> after adding: >> >> @example.com OK >> >> to that file. (this entry won't match a check_recipient_access. so it >> changes nothing to your checks). >> > Taking on from advice I've heard before (do not reuse maps) I'd prefer > to let others' experiences lend to mine and avoid doing that. It's not > a big deal to copy it and add the extra line when the original is > updated (it'll be automated anyway), but taking Noel's example of > explicit rejects (next message), is it required? no, if you do explicit reject as Noel suggested, then you don't need that. > If not, then I'd just > as soon have one less directive in the case that, or rather when, this > server is no longer mine. I try to make the configuration as > transparent as possible for the next guy. > > Thanks again for the detailed answers. > > -- DJ Lucas > >
