Local Relay patch for MS

[Pete]

Kevin Miller wrote:

>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>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Symantec Antiv Virus content filter has this option - about the only
usefull thing in that product