spamassassin 2.53 & MailScanner
Scott Adkins
adkinss at OHIO.EDU
Fri May 9 15:02:32 IST 2003
Any reason why my message got munged like this? This is the first time
I have seen this happen, and it looks like it starts where the SpamCheck
header is inserted... maybe an extra newline or something got added in
there, which screwed up the rest of the email headers (particularly the
MIME headers), which then caused the rest of the problems...
Anyone else see this with MailScanner? Maybe this is unrelated and
something else happened...
Scott
--On Friday, May 09, 2003 9:28 AM -0400 Scott Adkins <adkinss at OHIO.EDU>
wrote:
> Return-Path: <owner-mailscanner at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> Received: from redbudcm1a.cats.ohiou.edu (redbudcm1a.cats.ohiou.edu
> [132.235.8.34]) by oak2a.cats.ohiou.edu (8.12.8-OU/8.12.8-OU) with ESMTP
> id h49DbkhP1222050 for <adkinss at oak.cats.ohiou.edu>; Fri, 9 May 2003
> 09:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root at localhost)
> by redbudcm1a.cats.ohiou.edu (8.12.8-OU/8.12.8-OU) with X.500 id
> h49DbkaH831875 for adkinss at oak.cats.ohiou.edu; Fri, 9 May 2003 09:37:46
> -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.jiscmail.ac.uk (smtp.jiscmail.ac.uk
> [130.246.192.48]) by redbudcm1a.cats.ohiou.edu (8.12.8-OU/8.12.8-OU)
> with ESMTP id h49DbjnN836610 for <adkinss at OHIO.EDU>; Fri, 9 May 2003
> 09:37:46 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from LISTSERV.JISCMAIL.AC.UK (jiscmail.ac.uk) by
> smtp.jiscmail.ac.uk (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id
> <7.0002933C at smtp.jiscmail.ac.uk>; Fri, 9 May 2003 14:37:43 +0100
> Received: from JISCMAIL.AC.UK by JISCMAIL.AC.UK (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
> 1.8e) with spool id 21705558 for MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK;
> Fri, 9 May 2003 14:37:42 +0100
> Received: from 130.246.192.52 by JISCMAIL.AC.UK (SMTPL release 1.0i) with
> TCP; Fri, 9 May 2003 14:37:42 +0100
> X-RAL-MFrom: <adkinss at ohio.edu>
> X-RAL-Connect: <oak.cats.ohiou.edu [132.235.8.44]>
> Received: from oak1a.cats.ohiou.edu (oak.cats.ohiou.edu [132.235.8.44]) by
> ori.rl.ac.uk (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h49DbdS32395 for
> <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>; Fri, 9 May 2003 14:37:40 +0100
> Received: from Callisto (callisto.cns.ohiou.edu [132.235.197.32]) by
> oak2a.cats.ohiou.edu (8.12.8-OU/8.12.8-OU) with ESMTP id
> h49DSOhP1227260 for <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>; Fri, 9 May
> 2003 09:28:24 -0400 (EDT)
> References:
> <5C0296D26910694BB9A9BBFC577E7AB0011752B6 at pascal.priv.bmrb.co.uk>
> Message-ID: <1278472075.1052472506 at Callisto>
> Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 09:28:26 -0400
> Reply-To: MailScanner mailing list <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> Sender: MailScanner mailing list <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> From: Scott Adkins <adkinss at OHIO.EDU>
> Subject: Re: spamassassin 2.53 & MailScanner
> To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030509083619.03497038 at imap.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> Precedence: list
> X-MailScanner-VirusCheck: Found to be clean
> X-MailScanner-Information: http://www.cns.ohiou.edu/email/spam-virus.html
> X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-1.5, required 5,
> IN_REP_TO, PGP_SIGNATURE, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,
> SPAM_PHRASE_03_05)
>
> <5C0296D26910694BB9A9BBFC577E7AB0011752B6 at pascal.priv.bmrb.co.uk>
> <5.2.0.9.2.20030509083619.03497038 at imap.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.3 (Win32)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
> protocol="application/pgp-signature";
> boundary="==========1278479627=========="
>
> --==========1278479627==========
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> --On Friday, May 09, 2003 8:38 AM +0100 Julian Field=20
> <mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:
>
>> At 08:06 09/05/2003, you wrote:
>>> IMHO using RBLS directly within
>>> MailScanner is only useful if you don't have SA installed.
>>
>> I would probably agree with you there. If I had come across SpamAssassin
>> when I wrote the MailScanner RBL code, I doubt I would have bothered
>> writing it.
>>
>> I still find it comes in useful sometimes though, as otherwise I would
>> probably have to tweak the SpamAssassin scores for the RBLs I use high
>> enough to always trap messages.
>> --
>> Julian Field
>> www.MailScanner.info
>> MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
>
> Well, I don't know if I fully agree with you guys. I see the following
> reasons for using RBL's at the sendmail/mailscanner/spamassassin levels:
>
> 1) Putting the RBL's at Sendmail level rejects spam immediately, saving
> lots of cycles in preventing those messages from hitting MailScanner
> and going through the virus checks and spam marking.
>
> 2) Putting RBL's at MailScanner level means that you probably have a
> policy to not reject email, but only mark it. Virus scanning of the
> messages still occur, but if one of the RBL's flag it as spam, then
> you still save a lot of cycles by not pushing the message through
> Spam Assassin, which IMHO, is the biggest hitter on machine cycles.
>
> 3) Putting RBL's at the Spam Assassin level means that you have pleanty
> of horse power to handle any message that comes through and you want
> to rely on the scoring aspect to classify spam and not relying on the
> RBL's along to write a message off as spam.
>
> Of course, a lot of admins may use a combination of the above. We don't
> use RBL's at the sendmail level, but we do immitate it by populating our
> access.db file with RBL like information. We actually don't use RBL's at
> any point in the system. We receive easily a half-million messages a day
> to our system, and we are very cautious about introducing additional side
> affects where a network will slow down or go away, adding to the time it
> takes to process email. We can't afford to have mail back up, as it gets
> us in trouble (politically, for sure) every time.
>
> On top of that, our environment seems pushed to the brink a lot of times
> to handle the email load that comes in... on busy days, we may end up
> processing a million messages before it is all said and done. Add in the
> virus scanning and spam marking, as well as the delivery of email to the
> Cyrus server (running on the same cluster)... well, let's say we kind of
> watch the system pretty carefully. So, if we decide to add RBL's, it
> will most likely be at the sendmail level to prevent messages from going
> through the expensive virus scanning/spam marking route.
>
> We are seriously thinking about moving the virus scanning/spam marking to
> a seperate set of machines, either a bank of Linux boxes, or more likely
> a blade server that can be easily expanded, and offload all of that from
> our main email environment. If we do this, then I can easily see us
> putting the RBL checks at the Spam Assassin level, as we can just add
> more blades or machines to the environment if we start getting pushed for
> CPU cycles.
>
> But I do see reasons why you would want it at the MailScanner level...
> especially if you don't want to reject emails but need to save cycles
> wherever you can...
>
> Scott
> --=20
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> Scott W. Adkins http://www.cns.ohiou.edu/~sadkins/
> UNIX Systems Engineer mailto:adkinss at ohio.edu
> ICQ 7626282 Work (740)593-9478 Fax (740)593-1944
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> PGP Public Key available at http://www.cns.ohiou.edu/~sadkins/pgp/
> --==========1278479627==========
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: Mulberry PGP Plugin v2.0
> Comment: processed by Mulberry PGP Plugin
>
> iQA/AwUBPrus+6YtNXY159L9EQKskACcCbZGB4CZq4oNWZLk4M7aKdGXC34An33k
> 2Cj5Qfrgzs+/aVwKniGg99r0
> =R24f
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --==========1278479627==========--
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Scott W. Adkins http://www.cns.ohiou.edu/~sadkins/
UNIX Systems Engineer mailto:adkinss at ohio.edu
ICQ 7626282 Work (740)593-9478 Fax (740)593-1944
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
PGP Public Key available at http://www.cns.ohiou.edu/~sadkins/pgp/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 231 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20030509/b520c3c8/attachment.bin
More information about the MailScanner
mailing list