Jason Hirsh a écrit : > > On Jan 26, 2009, at 5:26 PM, mouss wrote: > >> Jason Hirsh a écrit : >>> >>> On Jan 26, 2009, at 5:04 PM, mouss wrote: >>> [snip] >>>> You probably want to ask on the amavisd list. but then give as much >>>> details as you can (whether you restarted amavisd-new, ... etc). >>>> >>> >>> I was told I should behere but all teh discussion Ihad on SPAM oretty >>> much >>> dealt wuth postfix and amavisd as an ingrate solution >>> >> >> hmm. did you ask on the amavis list: >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user >> >> you'll find more amavsid-new users there, thus maximizing the chances to >> get an answer. (but as I said, you may need to provide more details). >> >> >>>> >>>> PS. It is a bad idea to bounce mail that was queued by postfix. This >>>> causes backscatter (and you may be blacklisted...) >>> >>> I am confused by this comment.. do you mean I shouldn't let amavisd do >>> any bouncing?? >>> it handles all of my spam, content and vitus checking >>> >> >> if you use amavisd-new after the queue (content_filter or FILTER), then >> you should not configure it to bounce mail. Your choices are: (tag and) >> pass, quarantine or discard (the latter is bad, but still better than >> bouncing). >> >> The reason is that spammers forge sender addresses, so your bounce will >> go to an innocent who never sent you anything. This is backscatter. >> >> >>> postfix handles domain validation and the like.. >> >> Rejecting spam during the smtp transaction in postfix >> (smtpd_*_restrictions) is good. but once postfix queues the mail, you >> should not bounce. > > > so is > header_checks = regexp:/usr/local/etc/postfix/header_checks > > > bad or good
They are good for what they are designed for. I use them to reject dangerous attachments (.pif, ...), but I don't reject images or other media files. header_checks are not a substitute for an anti-virus or a spam filter. > > > as it turns out postfix is doing the rejection not amavisd > > > >> >> >> >
