Skipping users

[Glenn Steen]

On 07/03/07, Scott Silva <ssilva at sgvwater.com> wrote:
> 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/
See, with a little attention to detail you're putting out a real challenge;-):-)

> /need coffee!!! must calm down!
Black -> Speed, hyertension, mania...
Amber -> Calm...
Perhaps not during office hours though:-)

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