On Mon, March 23, 2009 10:58 pm, dsh979 wrote: > > Thank you for your reply Matt. > > I did not realise that items listed on the white list or the black list > would still be subject to the operation/analysis of the SpamAssassin > Rules. > > You have asked why I have set the required score the 100. Lengthy > explanation (sorry). I have done this to prevent SpamAssassin from > inserting SpamWarnings into the header/body of the relevant email. In > responding to spam I rely on the SpamAssassin Score in conjunction with > other "email message indicators"), and incorporate these variables into > a > domain level filter (cPanel). Mail is then bounced (by the filter) > without > any warning in the bounced email itself, that it has been bounced > because it > has been identified as spam. In fact, the bounced email will have a > message > inserted to the effect that there is no such user/receipient. In this > way, > if there is a sender who receives the bounced email, hopefully they take > me > off their mailing list, instead of looking for a way to 'outsmart' the > SpamRules. > > Q:How can I list items/users on a "white list" or a "black list" without > the > lists (and items) being the subject of further analysis by the > SpamAssassin > Rules (and therefore obtaining the same score for each item on the > relevant > list, irrespective of the operation of the SpamAssassin Rules, that is > -100=white list items & +100 = black list items)? >
A couple thoughts: 1. by returning the emails, you run the risk of false-negatives and thus creating 'email backscatter' (see wikipedia). 2. If you don't want to receive these things at all, have you considered using your MTA to block the actual IP addresses of known spammers using a couple of rules like (for sendmail): FEATURE(`dnsbl', `bl.spamcop.net',`"Rejected as Spam. See http://bl.spamcop.net?"$&{clientaddr}"; for more information"')dnl FEATURE(`dnsbl', `zen.spamhaus.org',`"Rejected as Spam. See http://spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip="$&{clientaddr}"; for more information"')dnl which rejects the email long before SA has to be bothered? When I check my logs, the spamcop rule alone blocks as many as 800-1100 email daily. Just something to consider. Karl > > > > Matt Kettler-3 wrote: >> >> dsh979 wrote: >>> Hello John >>> >>> Thanks for your reply. I am adding users to the white list and the >>> black >>> list (in the SpamAssassin user preferences file) as follows: >>> >>> blacklist_from *...@blacklist1.com >>> blacklist_from *...@blacklist2.com >>> blacklist_from *...@blacklist3.com >>> required_score 100 >>> whitelist_from *...@whitelist1.com >>> whitelist_from *...@whitelist2.com >>> whitelist_from *...@whitelist3.com >>> >>> >> >> Why do you have the required_score 100 in there? >> >> That could prevent your blacklists from working 100% of the time. >> >> The blacklist works by adding +100 to the message score, but if the >> other rules it matches come out negative, the blacklist won't be >> effective because the total score will be under 100. >> >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Spam-Assassin-White-List-tp22589650p22674314.html > Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > --- Karl Pearson ka...@ourldsfamily.com Owner/Administrator of the sites at http://ourldsfamily.com --- "To mess up your Linux PC, you have to really work at it; to mess up a microsoft PC you just have to work on it." ---
