A Few Post Install Questions
MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Wed Jul 19 19:25:40 IST 2006
On Wed19 Jul 06, at 17:14, Phillip Udel wrote:
> I finished the install in production and it was really smooth to
> set up. :)
> So I have a few setup questions I thought I would ask the group.
> Currently I am running a 5 for Spam Actions and I quarantine them
> and a 9
> for the High Scoring Spam Actions witch are deleted. This might be
> hard to
> answer, but would that be a normal setup for a company?
I run 6 and 10 and everyone here is happy with that. Most people use
my auto-delete-at-the-gateway feature of my system, and never
complain that they lost something they wanted.
I also use a lot of the rules_du_jour rulesets, which really help a lot.
> Would it be unwise to push up the Spam score on
> RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET and
> a few other list servers to something like 15 to force the mail
> into a high
> score and force the delete? I figure if they are in the lists then
> I don't
> need them.
I wouldn't advise tweaking any of the rule scores until you have been
running your setup for quite a long time and know how it behaves. If
you want to force a delete if it's in a single RBL then do it in your
MTA as it will be a lot faster and less load on your mail server.
Leave the scores alone.
> I have installed MailWatch for the first time, and I really like
> it. But I
> did have a concern with the Whitelist/blacklist. It seems less
> then the normal tables and it does not look like it supports
> wildcards. Is
> that truly a disadvantage?
It doesn't support wildcards as that would involve it having to
evaluate every rule for every sender/recipient of every message,
which will be no faster than using a standard MailScanner ruleset. By
banning wildcards, you end up with a system like the per-domain and
per-user white/blacklist code in CustomConfig.pm which does all the
hard work in about half a dozen hash table lookups, which is very
fast in Perl. It's not a great problem as far as most of our
customers are concerned. As you add more entries to the list, it
stays running at full speed and its speed is not affected by the
number of entries.
> Currently I have MCP Checks set to no in the MailScanner.Conf but
> in the
> mail log I see this message:
> Jul 19 12:03:54 cat MailScanner: MCP Checks completed at
> bytes per second Is that normal?
Yes, that's normal, sorry. Just ignore it.
Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store !
PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the MailScanner