[sendmail] Skipping rbl per domain
joost at waversveld.nl
Fri Nov 10 10:57:24 GMT 2006
That are indeed very good options but we are an hosting-provider and we
want the customer to decide what is SPAM and what is not. Only for the
customer who really understands what is happening and what it means, we
want to implement this features. Also, at the moment we use windows
mailservers with MailScanner in front of them. I did not investigate yet
if these milters will work with the mailserver.
I'll keep them in mind for the future. Thanx for the information.
Martin Hepworth wrote:
> Joost Waversveld wrote:
>> This is exactly what I was looking for, great!
>> I also looked at the solution of Steven Freegard, but that solution
>> needs an extra milter. This solution is 'standard' available in sendmail.
>> I think we are going to integrate this in our systems....
>> Thanks again!!
>> Best Regards,
>> Joost Waversveld
>> Scott Silva wrote:
>>> Joost Waversveld spake the following on 11/9/2006 8:50 AM:
>>>> Hi to all,
>>>> I've searched but I could not find an good answer...
>>>> We have some mailscanners with a lot of domains pointing to them, which
>>>> are very busy. At the moment we do not use RBL's through sendmail. We
>>>> let Mailscanner (SpamAssassin) handle those lookups. This way every end
>>>> user can choose what to do with the SPAM.
>>>> To handle the load better we want to enable some RBL-checks through
>>>> sendmail but we know some customers don't want that, because then we
>>>> deciding which mail could be deleted, and which not. If you get what I
>>>> Is it possible to enable the RBL-checks in sendmail per domain, so
>>>> customer1 can use the function(s), but customer2 does not??
>>>> Joost Waversveld
>>> This might do what you want with some experimentation;
> I'd look at milter-ahead or sender-verification
> (http://smfs.sourceforge.net/smf-sav.html, which can also so recipient
> verification) so reduce your load too.
> i drop over 66% of my inbound traffic this way.
More information about the MailScanner