> -----Original Message----- > From: Jo Rhett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: donderdag 19 oktober 2006 9:56 > To: Mark > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: ALL_TRUSTED creating a problem > > > Perhaps SA being focused on "post-SMTP" is the problem here. Why is > this the focus? In the modern world, you want to reject > during SMTP not send backscatter to the poor folks whose e-mail got > forged. > > Frankly, a milter environment is the only possible right way > to run SA. So why the constant comments as if this is some one-off > weird config?
I reckon the focus of SA on "post-SMTP" is due to the fact that it operates, by nature, post DATA phase. I agree that milters, or any other stuff done during the SMTP dialogue, are a preferable first line of defense. But since full SA checks need to be done post-DATA anyway, you lose much of the advantage of a milter (e.g. pre-DATA phase early-outs). A milter gives you the advantage of REJECT-ing during the SMTP dialogue (which really is a boon). But unless you close the connection first (thus losing the aforementioned advantage), SA checks can be quite time-consuming, especially with much RBL stuff done. Hence, these days I choose to let the LDA do SA checks. That way a spamd process can chew away for a whole minute or so (an eternity within an SMTP dialogue), without anything being at risk of timing out. As for backscatter to the poor folks whose e-mail got forged, you're not supposed to do that anyway. And LDA using SA should either silently drop a message indicated as spam, or attach it with ***SPAM*** in the subject or some such. But never re-open a connection to who one thought was the sender, to tell them they sent you spam; that very act is spamming itself. - Mark
