Am 18.06.2014 16:24, schrieb li...@rhsoft.net:
Am 18.06.2014 16:17, schrieb Jürgen Herrmann:
Am 18.06.2014 15:59, schrieb li...@rhsoft.net:
Am 18.06.2014 15:49, schrieb Jürgen Herrmann:
I have a problem with the following pcre table:
if !/X-Spam-Level:.*\*{7,}/
/X-Spam-Flag:.*YES/ HOLD
endif
/X-Spam-Level:.*\*{7,}/ DISCARD
the HOLD part of it is executed. the DISCARD part never matches.
I also had a version with
/X-Spam-Level: \*{7,}/
instead of
/X-Spam-Level:.*\*{7,}/
and also the following version does never discard any mails:
/X-Spam-Flag:.*YES/ HOLD
/X-Spam-Level:.*\*{7,}/ DISCARD
are you aware that you *must not* answer with 250 OK and the
silently discard messages? the spamfilter belongs *pre-queue*
and you have to REJECT spam, after you receive it and answer
with "250 OK" you have to deliver the message - period
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/IntegratePostfixViaSpampd
"and the ability to use before-queue content filtering"
fix your setup and get rid of the broken pcre-after-queue idea
this is in a milter_header_checks and on a host used as relay
host. so if i reject mail there it would create backscatter via
the relaying host. why not discard mails that are surely spam?
why not discard mails which are surely spam?
because you can not say "surely", a filter without false positives
is just a dream and because the sender has to know that the are
not accepted to have a chance re-send, a spammer won't do that
you bring anybody in big trouble debugging mailproblems
one complains why a message was not answered
the other says "i never got a email"
the sender says his operator said the message was accepted
*always* the first station has to check and reject mails
and after accepting it it must not be rejected on the
next hop while discard is always a very bad idea
hi!
mind you this is for _outgoing_ spam protection only for a farm
of webservers. we had so many problems regarding outgoing spam
in the last few months that i'm willing to take a little risk...
as mail here is 90% of the time queued via the sendmail command
you'd probably agree that i should not reject mails in this case
and cause backscatter?
thanks for your input!
best regards,
jürgen herrmann
--
XLhost.de ® - Webhosting von supersmall bis eXtra Large <<
XLhost.de GmbH
Jürgen Herrmann, Geschäftsführer
Boelckestrasse 21, 93051 Regensburg, Germany
Geschäftsführer: Jürgen Herrmann
Registriert unter: HRB9918
Umsatzsteuer-Identifikationsnummer: DE245931218
Fon: +49 (0)800 XLHOSTDE [0800 95467833]
Fax: +49 (0)800 95467830
Web: http://www.XLhost.de
