Do others see this effect in their maillogs?
mailscanner at yeticomputers.com
Mon Feb 12 20:45:26 CET 2007
Duncan, Brian M. wrote:
> I understand the directives and what they accomplish. (I thought I did
> at least)
> Isn't the log notation missing something still though?
> My log for RBL'ed messages says:
> to kattenlaw.com is cbl, MAPS-ALL, zen.spamhaus.org
> It looks like something needs to come after the "is" other then the RBL
> services that were hit.
> Something like, is high scoring Spam, cbl, MAPS-ALL, zen.spamhaus.org or
> is RBL'ed, cbl, MAPS-ALL, zen.spamhaus.org. Etc..
> I was really only asking about this because I wanted to know if others
> had the same type of notation in their logs. Since it's cosmetic, and
> does not effect my servers I am not that worried about it.
Yes, this is how things are noted in my logs as well. I understand
where you're coming from, but since logs are almost never grammatically
correct, I've never really considered it a problem. In fact, I'd rather
a log file give me information as concisely as possible, as long as the
information is complete enough to derive the missing info.
Grammatically correct is usually not concise.
I prefer to reject from RBLs at the MTA, and my particular business
model allows me to make this decision for my customers - so I don't use
RBL checks in MailScanner. Still, if I did, I would not need my logs to
preface every entry with "is spam" when rejecting/marking/quarantining a
message, nor, if space was at a premium, would I want them to. Spam is
stuff that SpamAssassin scored, cbl is cbl, etc. I already *know* it's
I suppose that if it were done the way you suggest, it might make it
easier to grep your logfile for a count of "is spam" lines and get a
quick total of all of your spam. Hmmm... Well, it's not something I
need, but I can see why it would bother someone. :)
More information about the MailScanner