Skipping users

[Scott Silva]

Glenn Steen spake the following on 3/7/2007 12:13 PM:
> 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
That comes after work!
BTW.. In American english, amber is a different thing. Not something easily
consumed... But I think I know what you are referring to. ;-P

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber


-- 

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