At 05:38 PM 8/4/2003 -0700, Justin Mason wrote:Simon Byrnand writes: >By default will it try to use one common AWL database, or will each user >have their own AWL database ? If both options are possible which is >recommended ?
By default, it will created the AWL in the name of the user that SA is executed as. In most server applications this winds up always being "root", "mail" or "nobody" depending on what server tools you use.
If you use spamc, you can pass the -u parameter to it, and SA will run as the user specified, and have a separate user_prefs, bayes db, and awl db in their home directory. But there must be a user account to do that.
Well I'm using spamd with the options:
-d -a -x -V /var/spool/userprefs -u spamd -H
And spamc is passed the username.
It seems that enabling AWL has created a subdirectory in the prefs directory under each username as mail comes in (owned by the spamd user) and created seperate AWL databases there.
Am I right in thinking that if I put auto_whitelist_factor 0 into the global local.cf configuration and only set it to 0.5 of my own account that it will disable it for everyone but me ? (So I can test it a bit)
I would suggest each user gets their own -- that seems to work well (for me at least).
We *did* have a bug previously where a shared db could be poisoned by a dictionary attack, as the score gradually lowered (on the assumption that repeat mails from the same person were likely to be nonspam). This has been fixed since 2.4x though. So shared should work OK as well...
With a shared DB you do have to be quite careful as it has some unexpected side effects, but it's not entirely impossible.
For sure you should make sure you don't mix a shared AWL database with any all_spam_to statements.. This makes for some interesting ways for a spammer to earn a whitelist entry by accidentally spamming your whitelisted account first, then dropping spams on your other accounts. The AWL will have a massive -100 entry from the first spam sent to the whitelisted account, and every subsequent spam they send with the same from and source IP block will have that in the average.
Hmm, thats a shame that all_spam_to fools the AWL like that, because as postmaster, I have abuse@ and postmaster@ listed in all_spam_to.
Because I won't use a global AWL it will only affect me, but it sounds like it would reduce the effectiveness of SA if I get a significant amount of spam to those 2 addresses. (At the moment I dont... maybe a couple a week)
Regards, Simon
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
