Request for comments

[UxBoD]

Alex B,

I have to agree with you on that.  I would love to see the configuration being moved into SQL, preferably as a option.  I know others are not so keen on this due to performance, but the majority of systems are adopting this approach and it does provide a lot of flexibility.  Especially remote/webenabled configuration which cannot be a bad thing.

Would make a domain based control panel very easy to implement :D

What is your view of this Jules ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Broens" <ms-list at alexb.ch>
To: "MailScanner discussion" <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:05:02 PM (GMT) Europe/London
Subject: Re: Request for comments

On 7/19/2007 10:33 PM, UxBoD wrote:
> True. Go for it then Jules, and we can play :)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Kettler" <mkettler at evi-inc.com>
> To: "MailScanner discussion" <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:15:36 PM (GMT) Europe/London
> Subject: Re: Request for comments
> 
> Alex Broens wrote:
>> On 7/19/2007 9:16 PM, Steven Andrews wrote:
>>> Yes please.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
>>> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Julian
>>> Field
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:42 PM
>>> To: MailScanner discussion
>>> Subject: Request for comments
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> I am wondering if it would help if I added "Subject" to the list of
>>> things you could use in rulesets.
>>>
>>> Would it be useful?
>> SA does this nicely, isn't it redundant?
>> + you have the meta advantage
> 
> 
> No, since when are rulesets in MailScanner in any way redundant with SA?

I didn't say the rulesets were redundant. What I feel is redundant is 
the fact that ppl will write regex in two places. If that is a target, I 
don't know.

While they will offer domain/user possiblities, I'd prefer to see it 
going in SQL direction,

I mentioned an idea to Justin Mason and apparently it wouldn't be too 
hard to add global/domain/user SQL suppport to the API /CLI spamasassin.
(the same SQL support spamd/spamc impelements)

If we get enough ppl requesting it, we can get all the SA rule features 
in SQL to interact with Mailscanner's rulesets.

Now THAT would be power!!!

> 
> SA can't do something like:
> 	quarantine any message with subject text "You've won"
> 	delete any message with the subject text "postcard"
>
> Sure you can use SA's rule scores to force your "high scoring spam action", but
> you can't do *BOTH* of the above actions at the same time.
> 
> But MailScanner rulesets can.

I'm not yet 100% convinced.
SA 3.2 has rule shortcircuiting aka SC(which apparently few know of or 
use). MailScanner could make use of SCing SA API output to provide the 
hard actions.
This could apply to ANY SA rule type and would save you from writing a 
whole extra regex section.

just my 2c

Alex



-- 
MailScanner mailing list
mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner

Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website! 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.