Multiple RBL Hits and High Scoring Action

Nathan Johanson nathan at TCPNETWORKS.NET
Mon May 12 21:29:23 IST 2003

That would be fantastic. Thanks Julian!

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Field [mailto:mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK] 
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: Multiple RBL Hits and High Scoring Action

That should be possible. Addition of a config file option saying
something like
Spam Lists To Reach High Score = 2
would be needed, as you can guarantee someone will need to tweak it. Set
to a large number to never reach a high score. By default I will supply
or something like that so people don't get a change in behaviour.

Would that do?

At 20:06 12/05/2003, you wrote:
>I am using MailScanner's RBL functionality (and bypassing Spam
>Assassin's RBL checks).
>Would it be difficult to add a feature to MailScanner that triggers the
>high scoring spam action when the sending system is found on more than
>one blacklist? I figure if two or more blacklists are triggered, the
>spamminess probability is high enough to warrant deletion.
>I know there was some discussion about turning off RBLs in MailScanner
>and using SpamAssassin to set higher scores per blacklist in order the
>exceed the high score threshold. But this doesn't really work for me,
>I don't want to delete if found on any *single* blacklist, but rather
>delete if found on *more than one*.
>Can it be done?
>Nathan Johanson
>Email: nathan at
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Julian Field [mailto:mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK]
>Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 10:09 AM
>Subject: Re: Spam rule wildcards...
>At 17:43 12/05/2003, you wrote:
> >Sendmail allows the use of the "+" character to indicate additional
>data for a
> >user -- without having an explicit alias set up to handle it.  So,
> >johndoe at can get mail at johndoe+spamtag at without any
> >configuration.
> >
> >However, I just noticed that this doesn't hit the intended rule in my
> >spam.action.rules file.  johndoe actually gets mail at multiple
>domains, so my
> >rule for him looks like this:
> >
> >To:     johndoe@*       deliver
> >
> >What is the best way to handle this?  Should I just add an additional
>rule for
> >johndoe like this:
> >
> >To:     johndoe+*@*     deliver
> >
> >...will that work as intended?
>That should do it. However, you could give the explicit regular
>in there if you want to:
>To:     /^johndoe\+.*\@/        deliver
>(nothing is needed after the "\@" except for the closing "/" character.
>Julian Field
>Professional Support Services at
>MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support

Julian Field
Professional Support Services at
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support

More information about the MailScanner mailing list