Skipping users

[Scott Silva]

Glenn Steen spake the following on 3/7/2007 2:45 PM:
> 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!
My American roots aside, I tend to favor a good Bourbon, but will try anything
once! But that is more habit and availability then actual preference.
But we are straying a little bit again!

Cheers!!


-- 

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