Treat Invalid Watermarks with No Sender as Spam

[Kevin Miller]

Glad the value setting is helping.  I agree with you that continued spam processing would be beneficial, although it is probably more efficient to just deep-six the message once it's determined it's spam.  For me, with just a few thousand messages per day it isn't a problem. If I was moving millions of mail messages it might be better to continue the current action.  What would be best is to have a toggle so the admin can decide whether they want mark it as spam and be done or continue further processing for more granular evaluation and tweaking.
Hopefully the folks that are maintaining MailScanner can take this up.  I appreciate what they do but know they're busy with day jobs and such.  I miss Jules...
 ...Kevin
--
Kevin Miller
Network/email Administrator, CBJ MIS Dept.
155 South Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-0242, Fax: (907) 586-4500
Registered Linux User No: 307357
From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Shawn Iverson
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 6:12 AM
To: 'MailScanner discussion'
Subject: RE: Treat Invalid Watermarks with No Sender as Spam

Setting to a low score has helped immensely.  Messages are still getting caught by the other algorithms while allowing legit emails through.

I will make a feature request, though.

It appears in the MailScanner code that when Treat Invalid Watermarks with No Sender As Spam equals anything spam or higher, further rule processing is halted.  This is taking precedence over whitelisting/blacklisting and probably should not.

Shawn Iverson
Rush County Schools
District Technology Coordinator
iversons at rushville.k12.in.us<mailto:iversons at rushville.k12.in.us>
>>> "Shawn Iverson" <IversonS at rushville.k12.in.us<mailto:IversonS at rushville.k12.in.us>> 2/26/2014 7:02 PM >>>
Just set a numeric...will observe and see what happens.

Shawn Iverson
Rush County Schools
District Technology Coordinator
iversons at rushville.k12.in.us<mailto:iversons at rushville.k12.in.us>
>>> Kevin Miller <Kevin_Miller at ci.juneau.ak.us<mailto:Kevin_Miller at ci.juneau.ak.us>> 2/26/2014 6:48 PM >>>
> When I disable the Treat Invalid Watermarks With No Sender as Spam, the messages do pass through just fine.

What happens when you assign it a numeric value?

...Kevin
--
Kevin Miller
Network/email Administrator, CBJ MIS Dept.
155 South Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-0242, Fax: (907) 586-4500
Registered Linux User No: 307357

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
E.F.A. Project<http://www.efa-project.org>, and is believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
E.F.A. Project<http://www.efa-project.org>, and is believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20140227/64952d32/attachment.html