On Mo, 22.08.2005, 16:29, Noel Jones sagte:
At 06:42 AM 8/22/2005, Jochen Seifarth wrote:
I am currently setting up a Postfix dual-SMTPD configuration with AMaViS
in between in the SMTPDs. In this configuration I would like to implement
restrictions in the second SMTPD, based on spam scores
Mostly for the archive, a copy of my answer on the postfix list.
See also README.postfix for details.
Everyone seems to use LMTP to connect to amavis, but is there a good reason
for this?
Does SMTP offer something better?
SMTP is simpler and faster. The only reason to use LMTP is to allow
Valli,
There's only one disadvantage: One must be aware of these changes
in the source code during a software update!
Therefore my feature request: Would it be possible to enable
this currently hidden feature via amavisd.conf?
I added it on a TODO list.
Mark
Jochen,
With Amavisd-new, Postfix and SpamAssassin on Debian, using a BEFORE-QUEUE
setup (i.e. dual SMTPD) I would like to achieve the following:
1. If (spam score = tag2_level)
Then Deliver mail to the 2nd SMTPD (localhost:10025) immediately
2. If (tag2_level = spam score = kill_level)
If using SpamAssassin older than 3.1, an upgrade of either SA to 3.1,
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile Plan-Driven
If using SpamAssassin older than 3.1, an upgrade of either SA to 3.1,
sorry i think it meant 3.01 not 3.1 ?
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development
If using SpamAssassin older than 3.1, an upgrade of either SA to 3.1,
sorry i think it meant 3.01 not 3.1 ?
No, I meant what I wrote. The problem is fixed in SA 3.1.0 (still in
pre-release and CVS), but not in 3.0.4. So the safety is provided by
either upgrading SA to 3.1 (rc1 or CVS trunk or
Hi.
We've been using amavis for http://www.uucpssh.org/ for a while and
we're pretty happy about it. Something I'd thought for a while is to
offer users the possibility for users to handle their own bayesian
database for their domains. I understand this is not doable on a
system wide
Nevermind :) it kinda bogged down the server with 20. Any other ideas?
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Matt Juszczak wrote:
Hi all,
Our mailq's are lagging behind a bit and mail is taking a bit of time to get
to its destination. Our LDAP servers handle the queries fine. Our process
limit was 15,
Download (with ldap) a list of current valid email addresses, 'portmap'
them. Add a pointer to the db in postfix's main.cf to handle MOST of
the email addresses, only do ldap queries on email addresses that don't
exist in the postmap'ed relay db.
For dictionary attacks, drop the connection after
Are there any documents out there that show the false positive rate if
everyone's spam level is set down to 1?
-Matt
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA *
Matt wrote:
Are there any documents out there that show the false positive rate if
everyone's spam level is set down to 1?
-Matt
Google for SUMMARY for threshold 1.0 (in quotes)
Gary V
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better
Matt wrote:
Thanks...
My boss wants to lower all of our user's thresholds to 1.0 automatically
(they currently default to 3.0), because about FIVE users have called and
complained of 10 false positives per day.
I keep telling him that without full statistical filtering, you can't be
From Gary V:
I personally find it better to keep the threshold high, tolerate what
comes in, and forget about what goes in the spam bin. I think it's
more efficient. If I get repetitive spam, I act on it with a custom
rule or content filter, or IP address reject, whatever I think might
be
My recent reply to this was NOT meant to hit the lists. Please ignore it.
Regards,
Matt
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile
Matt,
Lowering a general kill level is not effective against carefully crafted
spam mail, way too much collateral damage. A targeted defense is
what solves such cases. I believe that a kill level of 3 is already
way too low. Plug in additional rules, check SARE, add RBL/URI tests, ...
Mark
Hi everybody, hi Mark,
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:51:01PM +0200, Mark Martinec told us:
Lowering a general kill level is not effective against carefully crafted
spam mail, way too much collateral damage. A targeted defense is
what solves such cases. I believe that a kill level of 3 is already
sorry i think it meant 3.01 not 3.1 ?
No, I meant what I wrote. The problem is fixed in SA 3.1.0 (still in
pre-release and CVS), but not in 3.0.4. So the safety is provided by
either upgrading SA to 3.1 (rc1 or CVS trunk or a release when it will
be available), or to upgrade amavisd-new
Some one knows how I can make work together Active Directory and postfix.
I have users on Windows 2003 on Ms AD, and I wan postfix to delivery mail to
mbox and send mail from users on the Ma Server.
Or some one knows where I can find some manual for this.
I know there is a mailing list from
19 matches
Mail list logo
