Local Relay patch for MS

[Kevin Miller]

That would be handy, although you thought you could already do this after a
fashion by setting the option to not scan messages that already have the
MailScanner header.  Looking through the conf file I can't find it - was it
in another product?  Essentially it was a header that said to skip scanning
if it already had been as it was clean.

Of course, a spammer could spoof that, but it doesn't seem all that
profitable to do so, as my custom header value will differ from yours, so
the spammer would have to know what they all were and target their spam
accordingly.

By the way Lindsey, you may want to reset your reply to address.  It
defaults back to you instead of the list.

S'later...

...Kevin
--
Kevin Miller                Registered Linux User No: 307357
CBJ MIS Dept.               Network Systems Administrator, Mail
Administrator
155 South Seward Street     ph: (907) 586-0242
Juneau, Alaska 99801        fax: (907 586-4500


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lindsay Snider [mailto:lindsay at pa.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 1:47 PM
>To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>Subject: Re: Local Relay patch for MS
>
>
>On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 17:25, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> > Julian and fellow Mailscanneriers,
>> >   Here is a patch which allows MailScanner to ignore ips acting as
>> > relays to your mailscanner server.  For example, if you
>collect mail on
>> > a mx server and then relay it to a mailscanner server, you
>can specify
>> > your mx server as a local relay.  Then, mailscanner will
>not report the
>> > mx server as the source of the message but rather the ip
>which connected
>> > to the mx.
>>
>> > Something like the following will work for the conf file.
>> > /etc/MailScanner/MailScanner.conf:
>> > # Local Relay
>> > Local Relay = 205.166.61.207 205.166.61.208 205.166.61.202
>> > 205.166.61.131 205.166.61.0/25 10.0.1.8/32
>>
>> Cool! This would be nice for sendmail also. Would save some trouble.
>> Care to have a look for sendmail also?
>
>Yeah, I wouldn't mind writing the patch for sendmail.  I don't have
>sendmail but it should be similar enough.  Although almost rhetorical,
>would you then be up for testing it?  Maybe we should also wait to see
>what Julian thinks in case he'd like to add this to the main distrib.
>
>> Does the RBL part also check on the
>> 'ip before' ?
>
>I'm not sure.  I know message->{clientip} will be correct.
>I'll have to
>check what the RBL looks against.  Perhaps Julian is the best to answer
>this.  I'm out until tomorrow afternoon but when I get in,
>I'll check it
>out if someone else hasn't beat me to it.
>
>>
>> Bye,
>> Raymond.
>--
>Lindsay Snider <lindsay at pa.net>
>