RE: Disabling auto learning when USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO rule

[Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>]

At 01:58 PM 8/26/2004, Ryan Thompson wrote:
>You're right. I think what Tim is getting at is (and he can correct me
>if I'm wrong) that, sometimes, when folks use all_spam_to, they also
>want to ensure that those messages don't get autolearned *at all*,
>regardless of their spaminess or haminess.  Traffic from this mailing
>list is a good example.
>
>Tim, what you want can be done with 3.0 and the bayes_ignore_to
>directive. It works like a charm. However, you're using 2.64, which
>doesn't support bayes_ignore_to.
>
>Unfortunately, you're kind of out of luck doing this with 2.64.

True, but as Theo suggested, several tools that call SA can be configured 
to skip users like that.. Not only do you avoid tagging/learning/whatever 
but you save CPU time by not even trying to scan.

With procmail you just modify your procmail rules such that the user gets 
delivered without the rule that calls spamc/spamasassin.
MailScanner can do this quite easily with it's rule lists.
There are others, but I'm not familiar with them, be sure to check if your 
tool can do this.

If your tools can support it, this is by far a better way than any kind of 
modification to SA's configuration.

RE: Disabling auto learning when USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO rule

[Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>]

At 03:19 PM 8/26/2004, Ryan Thompson wrote:
>For the volume of mail affected by this on our network, CPU time is not
>worth mentioning. YMMV.

Very true.. It's going to heavily depend on amount of mail, and SA 
configuration.


>It really depends on what the OP wants to accomplish, but I think "by far 
>a better way" is debatable in the general case. :-)

Fair enough. I suppose "least prone to have potential for other problems" 
would be better...

There are other things than just bayes learning and tagging to consider in 
many sites... i.e: the AWL database (only a concern if all your mail is 
processed as one user.. but this is probably more often the case than not). 
The AWL is going to be a more common concern soon, since it's default-on in 
SA 3.0.

(note: the all_spam_to part won't poison the AWL, it processes 
pre-whitelist scores, but if you're wanting to avoid ANY kind of learning 
behavior for mail going to a given address, you'll need to consider it.)

But you are right.. "by far a better way" is subject to caveats of what the 
OP needs.

RE: Disabling auto learning when USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO rule

[Ryan Thompson <ry...@sasknow.com>]

Matt Kettler wrote to Ryan Thompson:

> True, but as Theo suggested, several tools that call SA can be
> configured to skip users like that.. Not only do you avoid
> tagging/learning/whatever but you save CPU time by not even trying to
> scan.

For the volume of mail affected by this on our network, CPU time is not
worth mentioning. YMMV.

> With procmail you just modify your procmail rules such that the user
> gets delivered without the rule that calls spamc/spamasassin.

Yep. I gave the same advice in my reply. ;-)

> MailScanner can do this quite easily with it's rule lists.  There are
> others, but I'm not familiar with them, be sure to check if your tool
> can do this.
>
> If your tools can support it, this is by far a better way than any
> kind of modification to SA's configuration.

Not for me, it isn't. Generally, I still like to see which rules hit,
and still have the option to control whether mail is autolearned or not.
(i.e., for some spamtraps, spam mailing lists (like this one), etc.)

It really depends on what the OP wants to accomplish, but I think 
"by far a better way" is debatable in the general case. :-)

- Ryan

-- 
   Ryan Thompson <ry...@sasknow.com>

   SaskNow Technologies - http://www.sasknow.com
   901-1st Avenue North - Saskatoon, SK - S7K 1Y4

         Tel: 306-664-3600   Fax: 306-244-7037   Saskatoon
   Toll-Free: 877-727-5669     (877-SASKNOW)     North America