Something I'd love to see in MailScanner

[Matt Kettler]

At 11:45 AM 12/5/2003, Julian Field wrote:
> >I understand the forwarding action...I use that now.  The problem is that
> >the address which would be forwarded to is dynamic.  It also would be to be
> >based on the relaying hostname and not the envelope sender.  Make any sense?
>
>In which case use a very simple Custom Function to produce the "Spam
>Actions" and "High Scoring Spam Actions" which use the $message->{from} and
>$message->{clientip} to produce their result.

Ugh... now the world can be infected with more broken mailservers.

I love MailScanner, it's just unfortunate that it's so easy to do
incredibly foolish things with it.

Really a system like this should use abuse.net lookups or use a semi-smart
system like spamcop, and not do what is suggested above. That's just broken
beyond belief.

If you're going to do something incredibly stupid like auto-abuse-report
spam, at least do it correctly. Comment #3 in SA bug 1219 has some good
insights on doing this kind of thing correctly.

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1219

And note that this was considered as an option for *manual* reporting, it
was never considered as an automatic thing.

You might want to consider looking at Theo's handlespam script and/or using
spamcop.