use spamcop and bounce with spamcop response help.

[Glenn Steen]

On 27/11/06, Chuck Rock <carock at epconline.net> wrote:
> Scott Silva <ssilva <at> sgvwater.com> writes:
>
> >
> > Chuck Rock spake the following on 11/26/2006 4:41 PM:
> > > I am bouncing messages with MailScanner that match the Spamcop list.
> > >
> > > I see in the latest version I'm using 4.56.8 you can modify message
> headers
> > > with actions.
> > >
> > > Is there a way to modify the message header to the spamcop address is
> listed
> > > with the proper IP like if you just used Sendmail to bounce it?
> > >
> > > This is what Spamcop tells you to di if you run Sendmail.
> > >
> > > FEATURE(`enhdnsbl', `bl.spamcop.net', `"Spam blocked see:
> > > http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml?"$&{client_addr}', `t')dnl
> > >
> > > I was thinking of adding the message header in MailScanner similar to this.
> > >
> > > Spam Actions = bounce header "X-Spam-Status:
> > > Yes : 'http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml?'(flagged_IP)
> > >
> > > Is there a syntax in Mailscanner to provide that IP to that header line so
> a
> > > person could get to the spamcop site with their IP address information?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > If you want that "feature", and are dropping the message anyway, why not just
> > drop it at the MTA. You will save yourself the load, and get the desired
> > result. You really should never bounce messages after you receive them. If
> > they are dropped during the connection phase, you get the rejection to the
> > proper server, but if you have received it, then all you have is the possibly
> > forged sender address to rely on.
>
> So basically, if I can have MailScanner skip the spam lists check altogether
> and just put the spamcop config in the proper sendmail config file for my
> inbound sendmail process?
Yes.

> Is there another benefit of having MailScanner check the rbl's instead of or
> in addition to Sendmail?
The only benefit is that you can have a more easily deciphered bounce
message (easy for humans, that is) at the cost mentioned by Scott.
If you are planning to ditch those mails anyway, there's no point in
doing it later than the MTA (if you trust SC that much)... The odd
user being rejected will get a normal NDR from the sending MTA, and
you save some resources by not handling it further... Not to mention
the "false bounces" you avoid.

If you don't trust SC implicitly, doing this in SA (or MS ->
quarantine) is the way to go.

-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se