Chris Turan wrote:
Terry Carmen wrote:
Don't do that. Once you've accepted a message, it's yours. Aside from
anything else, it makes you look bad when someone sends a legitimate
email that happens to "look" spammy and you bounce it back as spam.
Right, I'm trying to correct that problem. This wasn't much of an
issue when I first set up this server. None of my addresses or
domains were known to the spammers and as a result, I sent very very
little backscatter. That's changed now and I need to rethink things.
One of my clients HOLDs spammy messages for manual inspection by the
postmaster, then releases or deletes it.
This is a great idea! I didn't think of this at all but this idea
will definitely solve the problem for the interim until I can design
and QA a new server. I've just set it to forward spammy messages to a
mailbox where I'll review and release messages.
If you don't' want to corrupt the destination addresses, you can just
tag them as "HOLD" with
/^X-Spam-Level.*\*\*\*\*/ HOLD
in /etc/postfix/header_checks
which will leave the suspect messages in the Postfix HOLD queue, where
you can inspect them with postcat and release or delete them with postsuper.
just make sure you have:
header_checks=regexp:/etc/postfix/header_checks
in your main.cf file.
I have no before-queue scanner. I reject everything possible based on
the senders IP, existence of an rdns entry and some regular
expressions (see Re:RBL"). Anything that makes it past there is
never rejected or bounced, no matter what. It either goes to the
final recipient or is deleted based on corporate policy (chain
letters, porn, etc.)
Nice! I've been relying on bayesian scanning for the most part.
Althought, passing everything concerns me a bit but if the RBL's work,
then I think I should be in the clear. This one really underlines the
fact that I'm the one that's creating my own problem.
The RBLs help a lot, as do the regular expressions in the other
referenced thread.
Good luck!
Terry
--
Terry Carmen
CNY Support, LLC
315.382.3939
http://cnysupport.com
