On 01.10.21 14:16, SysAdmin EM wrote:
Hello Wietse. Thank you for your answer, you are always attentive to
everyone, you were very kind.
I'm going to start using pcre, in the header_checks file I have certain
locks to prevent sending spam or phishing.
/^Subject: Invest once and get passive income.*/
DISCARD SUBJECTSPAM2293
/^Subject: Earnings on a trading robot.*/ DISCARD
SUBJECTSPAM2294
/^Subject: Working Online At Home.*/ DISCARD
SUBJECTSPAM2295
/^Subject: Netflix Je account.*/ DISCARD
SUBJECTSPAM2296
/^Subject: Mailbox Size Warning.*/ DISCARD
SUBJECTSPAM2297
/^Subject:.*Sunrise ritual.*/ DISCARD SUBJECTSPAM2298
/^Subject:.*pending messages on hold.*/ DISCARD
SUBJECTSPAM2299
getting dir of .* at the end of REs (replaceing .*/ with /) would help quite
a bit.
I am going to ask an additional question, is the syntax of pcre similar to
regexp? because I will have to modify many rules.
replacing set of RE filters with spam filter would belp a bit more.
SysAdmin EM:
> ## Chequeo de header
> header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/header_checks
>
> ## Chequeos de body
> body_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/body_checks
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:52 PM Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote:
These can use lots of CPU for example with patterns that require
backtracking. (google for "regexp cpu").
Note that regexp: is less efficient than pcre:. The reason
for having regexp support in Postfix is that every system library
must support that, while pcre support is an addon.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Chernobyl was an Windows 95 beta test site.
