You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Michael W Cocke <co...@catherders.com> on 2006/11/21 16:42:42 UTC
amavisd-new or mailscanner?
I started out using amavisd-new then switched to MailScanner as my
mail tester 'framework' (SpamAssassin has been a constant)
Looking thru the docs of Mailscanner, it doesn't come out and SAY that
it just does the 'basic' spam test features, but reading between the
lines it seems to - I have a feeling that amavisd worked better, but
that's completely subjective... Does anyone have an opinion?
Mike-
--
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
--
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed
site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces,
try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments,
Re: blarsbl
Posted by Kelson <ke...@speed.net>.
Michael W Cocke wrote:
> He is. My system is on his list too, which is pretty amazing when you
> consider that my mail server supports 3, count them, 3 users - myself,
> my wife, and my 10 year old son - and he's somehow determined that my
> site hosts spammers.
Last I looked, he listed all of Sprint. All of it. Not just Sprint's
offices, not just sites hosted by Sprint, but the entire IP space. He
states that he normally adds entire netblocks.
In fact, he used to block access to his website from anyone who was
listed, which meant I needed to use an anonymizing proxy just to read
about why he'd blocked it.
Oddly, our mail server shows up with a 127.3.0.0 result. According to
his description, listings should return 127.1.xxx.xxx, with the last two
octets indicating the reason. Going by his table, the return code
indicates that he listed us for no reason.
I think it's telling that of the three multiple-RBL-lookup sites I have
bookmarked, one (http://www.robtex.com/rbls.html) has deprecated the
list and no longer checks it, and one (http://moensted.dk/spam/) labels
it with the phrase, "trying to be removed creates urges to kill".
--
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications <www.speed.net>
Re: blarsbl
Posted by Michael W Cocke <co...@catherders.com>.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:29:15 -0600, you wrote:
>Has anyone had any dealings with this guy.
>
>I take my mail server very seriously. Further I take spamming very
>seriously in general.
>
>Even when I detect one of my customers sending spam I disable there internet
>until the problem is resolved
>
>The guy that runs the blarsbl list wants to charge my company 1500$ to
>remove our mail server from his list.
>
>When it was listed there for no good reason.
>
>I checked my mail logs going back 6 months there wasn't a single email sent
>nor received from this guys domain and or ip block.
>
>It would seem to me he's nothing more then a petty extortionist.
He is. My system is on his list too, which is pretty amazing when you
consider that my mail server supports 3, count them, 3 users - myself,
my wife, and my 10 year old son - and he's somehow determined that my
site hosts spammers.
I ignore him.
Mike-
--
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
--
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed
site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces,
try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments,
Re: amavisd-new or mailscanner?
Posted by Ralf Hildebrandt <Ra...@charite.de>.
* Matt Hampton <ma...@coders.co.uk>:
> My mistake - I looked at his headers and thought he was using sendmail
Maybe he is :)
> so the milter was how I was expecting him to use it./
Anyway, amavisd-new speaks (on the "input" side of things) ESMTP and
LMTP, and on the output side ESMTP. That's how it works with Postfix.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) Ralf.Hildebrandt@charite.de
Charite - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-Berlin Fax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962
IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to plonk@charite.de
Re: blarsbl
Posted by Marc Perkel <ma...@perkel.com>.
DAve wrote:
> Thomas Lindell wrote:
>> Has anyone had any dealings with this guy.
>>
>> I take my mail server very seriously. Further I take spamming very
>> seriously in general.
>> Even when I detect one of my customers sending spam I disable there
>> internet
>> until the problem is resolved
>>
>> The guy that runs the blarsbl list wants to charge my company 1500$ to
>> remove our mail server from his list.
>>
>> When it was listed there for no good reason.
>>
>> I checked my mail logs going back 6 months there wasn't a single
>> email sent
>> nor received from this guys domain and or ip block.
>>
>> It would seem to me he's nothing more then a petty extortionist.
>>
>> Anyone else had to deal with this?
>>
>> This is the guy's www site
>>
>>
>> http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html
>
> Any admin blocking based on Blars has no mail we would miss, and we
> have very liberal limits for mail we accept due to our clients
> business models. He falls in the same category as SpamBag.
>
> DAve
I've dealt with him and he's a total whack job. His list totally sucks
and should not be used for any reason.
Re: blarsbl
Posted by snowcrash+spamassassin <sc...@gmail.com>.
> <**...@mchsi.com>: host gateway.mchsi.com[204.127.203.150] said:
> 550-12.175.23.161 blocked by ldap:ou=rblmx,dc=mso,dc=att,dc=net
> 550 Blocked
> for abuse. Please contact the administrator of your ISP or sending
> mailservice. (in reply to MAIL FROM command)
aha. the mchsi-variant of at&t. i seem to keep bumping into these guys
re: questionable emails/policies.
thanks for the info!
RE: blarsbl
Posted by Thomas Lindell <tl...@adlmail.com>.
Here is what I can give you
<**...@mchsi.com>: host gateway.mchsi.com[204.127.203.150] said:
550-12.175.23.161 blocked by ldap:ou=rblmx,dc=mso,dc=att,dc=net
550 Blocked
for abuse. Please contact the administrator of your ISP or sending
mailservice. (in reply to MAIL FROM command)
Reporting-MTA: dns; adlsrv4.airbornedatalink.com
X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 4A6C733DFE
X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; *****@adlmail.com
Arrival-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 18:13:01 -0600 (CST)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; *****@mchsi.com
Original-Recipient: rfc822;*****@mchsi.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Remote-MTA: dns; gateway.mchsi.com
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550-12.175.23.161 blocked by
ldap:ou=rblmx,dc=mso,dc=att,dc=net 550 Blocked for abuse. Please
contact
the administrator of your ISP or sending mailservice.
After contacting media com I was reffered to at&t to have the ip removed
from there blacklist
I spoke with my at&t rep and he informed me that they where using blarssbl
as a dns secondary.
This was a spoken conversation and no I did not record it.
I've sence gotten removed manualy from at&t's mirrored copy of blars.
My rep promised to look into the fact that they where using blars in the
first place.
-----Original Message-----
From: schneecrash@gmail.com [mailto:schneecrash@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
snowcrash+spamassassin
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Thomas Lindell
Cc: spamassassin
Subject: Re: blarsbl
On 11/21/06, Thomas Lindell <tl...@adlmail.com> wrote:
> At&t mail servers use his service.
can you please share/point-to some evidence of that fact? if that
*is* the case, i'll be chatting with my reps at at&t!
if i've missed it here, i apologize in advance ...
thanks.
Re: blarsbl
Posted by snowcrash+spamassassin <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 11/21/06, Thomas Lindell <tl...@adlmail.com> wrote:
> At&t mail servers use his service.
can you please share/point-to some evidence of that fact? if that
*is* the case, i'll be chatting with my reps at at&t!
if i've missed it here, i apologize in advance ...
thanks.
Re: blarsbl
Posted by Charlie Clark <ch...@begeistert.org>.
Am 21.11.2006 um 17:53 schrieb Thomas Lindell:
> At&t mail servers use his service.
>
> Which means I can't send to mediacom which is an at&t partner
>
> I couldn't believe at&t used his service.
>
> What's odd is that my company uses at&t backhaul bandwidth in the
> form of 4
> t1's
>
> Grr the whole thing is frustrating
The guy's a moron but I think his disclaimer lets him off:
"The BlarsBL is maintained by Blars at his wim. Use for any purpouse
should be done at your own risk, and Blars is not responsible for use
by anyone but himself."
While he is under no compunction to remove an address I think his
demand for money is ludicrous.
If this is held under the right nose at AT&T or Mediacom it should
produce the right reaction.
But this and other issues do pose the question: how easy is it going
to be for spammers to start using blocking list against normal users?
Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Helmholtzstr. 20
Düsseldorf
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-938-5360
GSM: +49-178-782-6226
Re: ****Re: blarsbl
Posted by Craig White <cr...@azapple.com>.
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 12:07 -0500, DAve wrote:
> Thomas Lindell wrote:
> > At&t mail servers use his service.
> >
> > Which means I can't send to mediacom which is an at&t partner
> >
> > I couldn't believe at&t used his service.
> >
> > What's odd is that my company uses at&t backhaul bandwidth in the form of 4
> > t1's
> >
> > Grr the whole thing is frustrating
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DAve [mailto:dave.list@pixelhammer.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:37 AM
> > To: spamassassin
> > Subject: Re: blarsbl
> >
> > Thomas Lindell wrote:
> >> Has anyone had any dealings with this guy.
> >>
> >> I take my mail server very seriously. Further I take spamming very
> >> seriously in general.
> >>
> >> Even when I detect one of my customers sending spam I disable there
> >> internet until the problem is resolved
> >>
> >> The guy that runs the blarsbl list wants to charge my company 1500$ to
> >> remove our mail server from his list.
> >>
> >> When it was listed there for no good reason.
> >>
> >> I checked my mail logs going back 6 months there wasn't a single email
> >> sent nor received from this guys domain and or ip block.
> >>
> >> It would seem to me he's nothing more then a petty extortionist.
> >>
> >> Anyone else had to deal with this?
> >>
> >> This is the guy's www site
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html
> >
> > Any admin blocking based on Blars has no mail we would miss, and we have
> > very liberal limits for mail we accept due to our clients business models.
> > He falls in the same category as SpamBag.
> >
> > DAve
> >
> > --
> > Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a logo change for
> > Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos for other non-international
> > holidays, but nothing for Veterans?
> >
> > Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible.
>
> I would think a phone call to your account manager with an appropriate
> link to the guys website would be enough to get the problem solved.
>
> http://www.blars.org/blars06c.jpg
>
> A copy of your past quarter bill from ATT would help to put the point
> into perspective.
----
by appearances, he doesn't seem much like that AT&T type - that picture
pretty much sums it up.
;-)
Craig
Re: blarsbl
Posted by DAve <da...@pixelhammer.com>.
Thomas Lindell wrote:
> At&t mail servers use his service.
>
> Which means I can't send to mediacom which is an at&t partner
>
> I couldn't believe at&t used his service.
>
> What's odd is that my company uses at&t backhaul bandwidth in the form of 4
> t1's
>
> Grr the whole thing is frustrating
>
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DAve [mailto:dave.list@pixelhammer.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:37 AM
> To: spamassassin
> Subject: Re: blarsbl
>
> Thomas Lindell wrote:
>> Has anyone had any dealings with this guy.
>>
>> I take my mail server very seriously. Further I take spamming very
>> seriously in general.
>>
>> Even when I detect one of my customers sending spam I disable there
>> internet until the problem is resolved
>>
>> The guy that runs the blarsbl list wants to charge my company 1500$ to
>> remove our mail server from his list.
>>
>> When it was listed there for no good reason.
>>
>> I checked my mail logs going back 6 months there wasn't a single email
>> sent nor received from this guys domain and or ip block.
>>
>> It would seem to me he's nothing more then a petty extortionist.
>>
>> Anyone else had to deal with this?
>>
>> This is the guy's www site
>>
>>
>> http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html
>
> Any admin blocking based on Blars has no mail we would miss, and we have
> very liberal limits for mail we accept due to our clients business models.
> He falls in the same category as SpamBag.
>
> DAve
>
> --
> Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a logo change for
> Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos for other non-international
> holidays, but nothing for Veterans?
>
> Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible.
I would think a phone call to your account manager with an appropriate
link to the guys website would be enough to get the problem solved.
http://www.blars.org/blars06c.jpg
A copy of your past quarter bill from ATT would help to put the point
into perspective.
DAve
--
Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a
logo change for Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos
for other non-international holidays, but nothing for
Veterans?
Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible.
RE: blarsbl
Posted by Thomas Lindell <tl...@adlmail.com>.
At&t mail servers use his service.
Which means I can't send to mediacom which is an at&t partner
I couldn't believe at&t used his service.
What's odd is that my company uses at&t backhaul bandwidth in the form of 4
t1's
Grr the whole thing is frustrating
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: DAve [mailto:dave.list@pixelhammer.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:37 AM
To: spamassassin
Subject: Re: blarsbl
Thomas Lindell wrote:
> Has anyone had any dealings with this guy.
>
> I take my mail server very seriously. Further I take spamming very
> seriously in general.
>
> Even when I detect one of my customers sending spam I disable there
> internet until the problem is resolved
>
> The guy that runs the blarsbl list wants to charge my company 1500$ to
> remove our mail server from his list.
>
> When it was listed there for no good reason.
>
> I checked my mail logs going back 6 months there wasn't a single email
> sent nor received from this guys domain and or ip block.
>
> It would seem to me he's nothing more then a petty extortionist.
>
> Anyone else had to deal with this?
>
> This is the guy's www site
>
>
> http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html
Any admin blocking based on Blars has no mail we would miss, and we have
very liberal limits for mail we accept due to our clients business models.
He falls in the same category as SpamBag.
DAve
--
Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a logo change for
Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos for other non-international
holidays, but nothing for Veterans?
Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible.
Re: blarsbl
Posted by DAve <da...@pixelhammer.com>.
Thomas Lindell wrote:
> Has anyone had any dealings with this guy.
>
> I take my mail server very seriously. Further I take spamming very
> seriously in general.
>
> Even when I detect one of my customers sending spam I disable there internet
> until the problem is resolved
>
> The guy that runs the blarsbl list wants to charge my company 1500$ to
> remove our mail server from his list.
>
> When it was listed there for no good reason.
>
> I checked my mail logs going back 6 months there wasn't a single email sent
> nor received from this guys domain and or ip block.
>
> It would seem to me he's nothing more then a petty extortionist.
>
> Anyone else had to deal with this?
>
> This is the guy's www site
>
>
> http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html
Any admin blocking based on Blars has no mail we would miss, and we have
very liberal limits for mail we accept due to our clients business
models. He falls in the same category as SpamBag.
DAve
--
Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a
logo change for Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos
for other non-international holidays, but nothing for
Veterans?
Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible.
Re: blarsbl
Posted by Andrzej Adam Filip <an...@xl.wp.pl>.
"Thomas Lindell" <tl...@adlmail.com> writes:
> Has anyone had any dealings with this guy.
>
> I take my mail server very seriously. Further I take spamming very
> seriously in general.
>
> Even when I detect one of my customers sending spam I disable there internet
> until the problem is resolved
>
> The guy that runs the blarsbl list wants to charge my company 1500$ to
> remove our mail server from his list.
>
> When it was listed there for no good reason.
>
> I checked my mail logs going back 6 months there wasn't a single email sent
> nor received from this guys domain and or ip block.
>
> It would seem to me he's nothing more then a petty extortionist.
>
> Anyone else had to deal with this?
>
> This is the guy's www site
>
>
> http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html
>
> Here is a quote from his www site
>
> If you would like a site be added or removed from BlarsBL, you may hire
> Blars at his normal consulting rates (currently $250/hour, 2 hour minimum,
> $1000 deposit due in advance for non-established customers) to investigate
> your evidence about the site. If it is found that the entry was a mistake,
> no charge will be made and the entire deposit will be refunded. Send Blars
> email from a non-listed account to verify current rates and arrange payment.
Do pay (to much) attention to this [person].
Once after investigating somebody's complaint posted in usenet
(pl.* hierarchy) I found that *ONE* */16 listing in blars list listed
50+ Autonomous (Routing) Systems from Sakhalin in Russia trough Ukraine
and Poland to Germany. Even SPEWS is not that brave/draconian (I hope).
--
[pl2en: Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : anfi@priv.onet.pl : anfi@xl.wp.pl
Re: blarsbl
Posted by Spamassassin List <sp...@gmail.com>.
> This is the guy's www site
> http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html
>
I had some trouble with his list before too. Not many people is using that
list, so i guess, not much of damage done anyway.
Re: blarsbl
Posted by twofers <tw...@yahoo.com>.
I'm sure the FTC and US Attorny General's office would like to know about this.
All you have to do is write a a letter addressed to Attn: of Consumer Affairs and these guys will check it out....in a big way.
Wes
Thomas Lindell <tl...@adlmail.com> wrote:
Has anyone had any dealings with this guy.
I take my mail server very seriously. Further I take spamming very
seriously in general.
Even when I detect one of my customers sending spam I disable there internet
until the problem is resolved
The guy that runs the blarsbl list wants to charge my company 1500$ to
remove our mail server from his list.
When it was listed there for no good reason.
I checked my mail logs going back 6 months there wasn't a single email sent
nor received from this guys domain and or ip block.
It would seem to me he's nothing more then a petty extortionist.
Anyone else had to deal with this?
This is the guy's www site
http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html
Here is a quote from his www site
If you would like a site be added or removed from BlarsBL, you may hire
Blars at his normal consulting rates (currently $250/hour, 2 hour minimum,
$1000 deposit due in advance for non-established customers) to investigate
your evidence about the site. If it is found that the entry was a mistake,
no charge will be made and the entire deposit will be refunded. Send Blars
email from a non-listed account to verify current rates and arrange payment.
---------------------------------
Sponsored Link
Want a degree but can't afford to quit? Online degrees from top schools - in as fast as 1 year
blarsbl
Posted by Thomas Lindell <tl...@adlmail.com>.
Has anyone had any dealings with this guy.
I take my mail server very seriously. Further I take spamming very
seriously in general.
Even when I detect one of my customers sending spam I disable there internet
until the problem is resolved
The guy that runs the blarsbl list wants to charge my company 1500$ to
remove our mail server from his list.
When it was listed there for no good reason.
I checked my mail logs going back 6 months there wasn't a single email sent
nor received from this guys domain and or ip block.
It would seem to me he's nothing more then a petty extortionist.
Anyone else had to deal with this?
This is the guy's www site
http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html
Here is a quote from his www site
If you would like a site be added or removed from BlarsBL, you may hire
Blars at his normal consulting rates (currently $250/hour, 2 hour minimum,
$1000 deposit due in advance for non-established customers) to investigate
your evidence about the site. If it is found that the entry was a mistake,
no charge will be made and the entire deposit will be refunded. Send Blars
email from a non-listed account to verify current rates and arrange payment.
Re: amavisd-new or mailscanner?
Posted by Matt Hampton <ma...@coders.co.uk>.
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Matt Hampton <ma...@coders.co.uk>:
>
>> What do you mean by more than the 'basic' features? Bear in mind as
>> well that MailScanner and amavisd-new check for spam at completely
>> different stages of the mail processing - amavisd-new at connection time
>> and MailScanner after it has been queued.
>
> Tha's not correct. A "normal" amavisd-new (with Postfix) scans the
> mail AFTER it's been queued.
>
> It can be made to scan at connection time (by using smtpd_proxy_filter).
>
My mistake - I looked at his headers and thought he was using sendmail
so the milter was how I was expecting him to use it./
matt
Re: amavisd-new or mailscanner?
Posted by Ralf Hildebrandt <Ra...@charite.de>.
* Matt Hampton <ma...@coders.co.uk>:
> What do you mean by more than the 'basic' features? Bear in mind as
> well that MailScanner and amavisd-new check for spam at completely
> different stages of the mail processing - amavisd-new at connection time
> and MailScanner after it has been queued.
Tha's not correct. A "normal" amavisd-new (with Postfix) scans the
mail AFTER it's been queued.
It can be made to scan at connection time (by using smtpd_proxy_filter).
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) Ralf.Hildebrandt@charite.de
Charite - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-Berlin Fax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962
IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to plonk@charite.de
Re: amavisd-new or mailscanner?
Posted by Ralf Hildebrandt <Ra...@charite.de>.
* Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si>:
> As far as invoking SA and getting its results, it should be about the same.
You forget your own p0f fingerprinting :)
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) Ralf.Hildebrandt@charite.de
Charite - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-Berlin Fax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962
IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to plonk@charite.de
Re: amavisd-new or mailscanner?
Posted by Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si>.
Michael W Cocke wrote:
> Well, the mailscanner docs (including the book) say that mailscanner
> uses the perl routines available from CPAN. Nothing else...
> I'm a fair perl hacker and I've looked at the amavis and mailscanner
> code, and I can't exactly put my finger on anything, but I feel like
> I get more spam in my inbox when I use mailscanner than when I use
> amavisd. I was just wondering if anyone else had any comments.
As far as invoking SA and getting its results, it should be about the same.
One difference regarding SA is when mail is larger than some fixed size:
MS chops the mail and calls SA anyway, amavisd-new does not call SA in
this case. This may be good or bad: MS may catch a large spam message,
but breaks DKIM and SA signature - SA would find signature invalid.
Other features, project priorities and approaches can be rather different.
Mark
Re: amavisd-new or mailscanner?
Posted by Michael W Cocke <co...@catherders.com>.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:58:26 +0000, you wrote:
>Michael W Cocke wrote:
>> I started out using amavisd-new then switched to MailScanner as my
>> mail tester 'framework' (SpamAssassin has been a constant)
>>
>> Looking thru the docs of Mailscanner, it doesn't come out and SAY that
>> it just does the 'basic' spam test features, but reading between the
>> lines it seems to - I have a feeling that amavisd worked better, but
>> that's completely subjective... Does anyone have an opinion?
>
>What do you mean by more than the 'basic' features? Bear in mind as
>well that MailScanner and amavisd-new check for spam at completely
>different stages of the mail processing - amavisd-new at connection time
>and MailScanner after it has been queued.
>
>matt
>
>(a happy MailScanner user!)
Well, the mailscanner docs (including the book) say that mailscanner
uses the perl routines available from CPAN. Nothing else...
I'm a fair perl hacker and I've looked at the amavis and mailscanner
code, and I can't exactly put my finger on anything, but I feel like I
get more spam in my inbox when I use mailscanner than when I use
amavisd. I was just wondering if anyone else had any comments.
Mike-
--
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
--
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed
site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces,
try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments,
Re: amavisd-new or mailscanner?
Posted by Matt Hampton <ma...@coders.co.uk>.
Michael W Cocke wrote:
> I started out using amavisd-new then switched to MailScanner as my
> mail tester 'framework' (SpamAssassin has been a constant)
>
> Looking thru the docs of Mailscanner, it doesn't come out and SAY that
> it just does the 'basic' spam test features, but reading between the
> lines it seems to - I have a feeling that amavisd worked better, but
> that's completely subjective... Does anyone have an opinion?
What do you mean by more than the 'basic' features? Bear in mind as
well that MailScanner and amavisd-new check for spam at completely
different stages of the mail processing - amavisd-new at connection time
and MailScanner after it has been queued.
matt
(a happy MailScanner user!)
Re: amavisd-new or mailscanner?
Posted by Martin Hepworth <ma...@solidstatelogic.com>.
Michael W Cocke wrote:
> I started out using amavisd-new then switched to MailScanner as my
> mail tester 'framework' (SpamAssassin has been a constant)
>
> Looking thru the docs of Mailscanner, it doesn't come out and SAY that
> it just does the 'basic' spam test features, but reading between the
> lines it seems to - I have a feeling that amavisd worked better, but
> that's completely subjective... Does anyone have an opinion?
>
> Mike-
> --
> If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
> --
> Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed
> site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces,
> try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments,
>
Depends on how you've configured MailScanner..it does alot of other
tests (phishing detection, filename based tests, looking inside zip.gzip
archives for bad content etc).
As to why you get more spam in your inbox than with amavisd-new theres
alot more around recently and how many third party rules have you
installed???
--
Martin Hepworth
Senior Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean.
**********************************************************************