Skipping users

[Glenn Steen]

On 07/03/07, Scott Silva <ssilva at sgvwater.com> wrote:
> 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
It is in referral to the color of the drink (same as what named the
fossilised resin in the first place, or perhaps the other way around,
at least according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_(color) :-).
... My personal preference is the Single Malt variant... where some,
if not all, to my colourblind eyes are indistinguishable (in colour)
from the Amber that is oh so very common around here (semi-rock...
fossilised resin... No good for drinking, indeed:).

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