Skipping users

[Scott Silva]

Glenn Steen spake the following on 3/7/2007 1:38 AM:
> On 06/03/07, Scott Silva <ssilva at sgvwater.com> wrote:
>> Hugo van der Kooij spake the following on 3/5/2007 10:56 PM:
>> > On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Thomas A. Cameron wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm not completely sure what the terminology is for what I'm trying to
>> >> do or what layer would be best to do it on, so I'm mailing the list.
>> >>
>> >> I'll start out by saying I'm extremely pleased with MailScanner. The
>> >> entire suite works extremely well, and  in the short time I've been
>> >> using it I have already seen better results than from any other
>> >> package I have ever experienced with other packages.
>> >>
>> >> Having said all of that, I have a user that believes he doesn't need
>> >> SPAM protection. He believes he can handle the problem better than any
>> >> tool. If I had a way to do it, I wouldn't block connections with an
>> >> RBL either, just to show him what he's in for. But, that's not
>> >> something I really want to get into.
>> >
>> >> My question is this. How can I tell MailScanner to blindly accept any
>> >> email destined for several addresses? Would I be better off doing this
>> >> on the postfix level with a header check that tests positive on every
>> >> address except his few? I use the SQL whitelist function of MailWatch,
>> >> so I can't whitelist wildcards for his address. Is it possible to
>> >> chain rule files & modules for the "is definitely not spam" option?
>> >
>> >> Any suggestions would REALLY be appreciated. This is such a backward
>> >> idea, I'm not even sure what I would call it.
>> >
>> > Well if they want all the spam they want. Let them have it.
>> >
>> >  1. Put some hidden links with a mailto: to they email address on line.
>> >  2. Exclude every check for that user by white listing them in postfix.
>> >  3. Exclude them in your MailScanner with a rule in
>> >     spam.whitelist.rules like:
>> >
>> > To:             haasje at vanderkooij.org          yes
>> >
>> > I use it for a few addresses but for another reason. (Some addresses
>> are
>> > used as bait to educate my bayesian filterin manualy.)
>> >
>> > But if they want it. Let them have is and let them pay for the
>> > additional resources like bandwidth and such.
>> >
>> > Hugo.
>> >
>> You forgot one;
>> high scoring spam action = delete forward lame-user at mydomain.com
>>
> Challenging Res for the "most evil bunny on list" title, are we Scott? :-)
> 
> Cheers
I have no problem being second!

"We're not last! We're not last!!!"

Besides, if I wanted to be the "most evil bunny on list" I would have added
the same to the low scoring spam options. And then I would put their e-mail
address in every newsgroup I could find and also add it to the meta-data of
some web sites!   MMMUUUUHHHHAaaaaaaaaa!!!

And there is also rm -rf /home/lame-user/

/need coffee!!! must calm down!




-- 

MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!