Proper way to handle misidentifiedspamsite-wide ?

[Desai, Jason]

I have all of mail tagged as spam going to one mailbox, no matter who the
mail was sent to.  I do this in exim.  Specifically, I have a transport
defined similar to:

spam_delivery:
  driver = appendfile
  no_from_hack
  prefix = ""
  suffix = ""
  maildir_format
  directory = /path/to/maildir
  create_directory

Then I have a director defined similar to:

spam_domain:
  domains = "domains.whos.spam.i.want"
  condition = ${if def:h_X-MailScanner-SpamCheck:{yes}{no}}
  driver = smartuser
  transport = spam_delivery

What this is doing is checking for a X-MailScanner-SpamCheck header in the
mail message.  If it finds it, the mail will be delivered using the
spam_delivery transport, which will just put the message in a maildir
directory.  I can use any maildir capable client to view the messages (or an
imap server that understands maildir).

Notes:
*  The location of the director definition is important.  Any director
defined before it could be used instead.
*  You must have Spam Action = deliver
*  You will probably need to have Always Include SpamAssassin Report = no


I am not an exim expert, but this seems to work for me.  At least this keeps
the functionality out of MailScanner, so Julian doesn't have to worry about
legal issues.

Hope this helps someone.

Jase

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Goggan [mailto:jgoggan at DCG.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 1:06 PM
> To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: [MAILSCANNER] Proper way to handle
> misidentifiedspamsite-wide?
>
>
> Julian Field wrote:
> > You get the qf and df "mqueue" files so you can drop them straight
> > back into the queue if you actually want them to be delivered.
>
> Yes, but then looking through them to detect non-spam mistakes is then
> difficult, yes?  I've suddenly got a few hundred qf files to
> go checking
> subjects in -- there must be a better way?
>
> > Under European law you ain't supposed to be manually editing other
> > people's mail, its an infringement of the Data Protection Act.
>
> Well, it's pretty much MY mail.  Most of what I'm sending
> using "store" is
> mail to various catch-all accounts plus some admin accounts.
> Basically, it is
> all "mine" -- or at least the company's and I have full
> rights to go looking
> through it...
>
> > You can find most non-spam by just reading the subject lines, which
> > are contained in the qf files.
>
> This just seems odd to me.  It basically seems that doing any
> action other
> than "deliver" is just a problem.  If you do "delete", then
> you're going to
> lose some non-spams.  If you do "store" because you want to
> look through it
> for mistakes later, it seems that just trying to wade through
> the hundreds of
> qf files is such a pain as to not be worth it.
>
> Again, I'm surprised that people are doing this...  Hmmm...
>
> > Again however, this is almost certainly a breach of the DPA.
>
> Nope.  Not in this instance.
>
> > Writing code in the full knowledge that it would break laws if used
> > is rather shaky ground, and I don't really want to go there if I can
> > avoid it.
>
> Assuming that certain options, if used, must be illegal just
> seems incorrect
> to me.  There are certainly many legal uses for what I was
> planning to do.
> But, I understand your concern...
>
> > I appreciate that many/most of you live outside the scope of these
> > laws, but I don't and I'm the one producing the "package".
>
> Agreed.  It is indeed your project and I therefore respect
> that.  I just see
> legitimate uses for such features.  Especially when the
> process involved as it
> is now seems almost worthless.  I feel like "deliver" is the
> only usable spam
> option unless people are doing a lot of custom work with
> things that are
> "stored."
>
> Of course, making it "easier" would then go against your
> concerns for the
> DPA.  Even though what I was doing would certainly not be
> against it -- even
> if I lived where it applied.  :)
>
> Ok -- well -- I guess I'll stick with "deliver" for now and
> wade through it
> that way.  :(
>
> Thanks for your time and responses!
>
>  - John...
>