New wiki page

[Jason Ede]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info [mailto:mailscanner-
> bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Remco Barendse
> Sent: 01 July 2009 13:47
> To: MailScanner discussion
> Subject: Re: New wiki page
> 
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Julian Field wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On 29/06/2009 20:32, Remco Barendse wrote:
> >>  On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Julian Field wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > >   Julian,
> >> > >
> >> > >       Just wondering why you don't recommend MCP? I'm using it
> >> > >  currently and
> >> > >       wondering if I should disable it now.
> >> > >
> >> >  It has a huge processing overhead and as a result is very slow.
> >> >  "SpamAssassin Rule Actions" can do pretty much anything MCP can,
> and it
> >> >  does it enormously faster.
> >>
> >>
> >>  But what if you use MCP on outgoing mail only, meaning mail that is
> not
> >>  run through spamassassin
> >>
> > You can minimise the overhead with a ruleset on the whole MCP
> process, but I
> > would still try your best to implement what you need using
> SpamAssassin Rule
> > Actions. If I had thought of the whole SpamAssassin Rule Actions at
> the time,
> > I would never have implemented MCP at all. It's now there, so there's
> nothing
> > to be gained by removing it, and it would really piss off the sites
> that
> > still use it, so I'm not going to do that.
> 
> OK, thanks for the advice. I will have a look at that.
> 
> By the way, if i would use SpamAssassin for that job, wouldn't SA
> filter
> out all the offers for the viagra pills i am sending out?? :)))))
> 
> Seriously though, i disabled SA for all our outgoing mail, it would be
> silly if our own spamfilter would start blocking outgoing e-mails, even
> one false positive could cause some very angry faces in my direction.
> 
> Remco

What happens if you get a mass mailer worm on your network or a compromised computer that starts churning out spam? Far more red faces that way.

Jason