Adding ASN info

Alex Broens ms-list at
Wed May 21 17:08:28 IST 2008

On 5/21/2008 5:55 PM, Julian Field wrote:
> Alex Broens wrote:
>> On 5/21/2008 3:29 PM, Lars Kristiansen wrote:
>>> Hugo van der Kooij skrev:
>>>> Steve Freegard wrote:
>>>> | Hugo van der Kooij wrote:
>>>> |> Has anyone done any work on adding ASN info to a message in the 
>>>> way this
>>>> |> procmail filter does it? I would prefer to do this in postfix but a
>>>> |> custom call in MailScanner before SA is called upon would do as 
>>>> well.
>>>> |>
>>>> |>
>>>> |>
>>>> |> It sounds like a fun idea to let the ASN info become part of the
>>>> |> Bayesian selection. And we might add a decision to block all 
>>>> messages
>>>> |> from certain countries. All I ever got from Nigeria are messages 
>>>> with
>>>> |> wacky deals.
>>>> |
>>>> | SpamAssassin can do this natively if you want to Bayes to consider 
>>>> the
>>>> ASN:
>>>> |
>>>> |
>>>> So adding the 3 lines indicated to
>>>> /etc/MailScanner/spam.assassin.prefs.conf should be sufficient to add
>>>> the ASN info?
>>>> One of the side effects of getting something to kill the pain in my
>>>> spine is that it makes it a bit harder to think logical. But it beats
>>>> the pain so I can work out that problem that locks up my spinal column.
>>>> So I have to accept the side effects this week.
>>>> Hugo.
>>> No success here.
>>> The ASN-plugin in spamassassin adds a header: X-Spam-ASN
>>> It does work for me with spamassassin -D but not in mailscanner.
>>> Should this work in mailscanner to add a header with a 
>>> spamassassin-plugin?
>> If you add the add_header directive and use SA to run regex against 
>> it, it works, "virually", but MS won't write it in the msg because MS 
>> doesn't know about these directives (and probably never will)
>> Take in account that if you're boxes are hi traffic, this will slow 
>> down your processing.
> It takes quite a bit of time to look it up, and adds *Very* little 
> helpful information in working out the spaminess of the message. So I 
> have no plans to add support for it as yet another special case.


the add_headers are of great use and can be used,  the fact that they're 
not written makes it harder to catch patterns but they get hit if applied.

for example, adding :
add_header all Relays-External _RELAYSEXTERNAL_
add_header all Relays-Untrusted _RELAYSUNTRUSTED_

to triggers a bunch of rules.

many times you'll see the hits but wonder where they come from... and 
that's what we miss if MS doesn't write them.

Not a real Prio, but it would be a *very_nice_to_have*

but what's more important, relax and let the Docs do the magic on your 

take care


More information about the MailScanner mailing list