Set it and forget it?

Steve Campbell campbell at
Mon Nov 26 17:37:42 GMT 2007

Ugo Bellavance wrote:
> Steve Campbell wrote:
>> I'm curious as to how much time is spent by most of the email admins 
>> here using MS. I realize that some of my efforts could be streamlined 
>> by upgrading to the latest release, but the people here seem to think 
>> that this is a "set it and forget it" type of operation.
> I don't believe that.
Gosh, maybe it _is_ me then.
>> There is a real problem here in that people want all the mail they 
>> are supposed to get, and 100% trashing of the email they shouldn't 
>> get. I find that I spend a little time daily managing this stuff, but 
>> my system isn't like anyone else's who's system isn't like the next 
>> guy's .....
> Well, the more time you spend on your system, the better it will run, 
> but don't worry, we do have some issues with our users as well!
>> A specific question I have, though, would be:
>> I think I was following a thread a while back about an RBL that has 
>> some specifics for blocking those "Address may be forged" emails (Zen 
>> or something like that). Can anyone elaborate on that for me and let 
>> me know how to set it up on my 4.52.2 version until I get it 
>> upgraded. I do all of my RBL checks in SA.
> Well, using at the MTA level could help you a lot. 
> I've never seen a false positive from that list ever.
I think I'd still prefer to do the check in SA as long as resources 
remain sufficient. Any other reason to put it at the MTA level?
> Regarding your question, "Address may be forged"... What address do 
> you mean, in your sendmail logs or e-mail address (spf, domain keys, 
> senderID, etc)?

That's supposed to have been "(may be forged)" from the sendmail logs.
> Regards,
> Ugo
Thanks for the info, though, Ugo.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list