From mailscanner at barendse.to Fri Feb 4 13:00:22 2022 From: mailscanner at barendse.to (mailscanner at barendse.to) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:00:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: HTML links disarm? Message-ID: MailScanner has some nifty features to disarm web bugs and thinks like that but would there be a way to simply disarm each and every html link in an email in such a way that accidental opening is not possible? I know that would remove the pretty pictures and things like that in emails but I am not bothered by that at all... Thanks! From Antony.Stone at mailscanner.open.source.it Fri Feb 4 13:05:25 2022 From: Antony.Stone at mailscanner.open.source.it (Antony Stone) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:05:25 +0100 Subject: HTML links disarm? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <202202041405.26031.Antony.Stone@mailscanner.open.source.it> On Friday 04 February 2022 at 14:00:22, mailscanner at barendse.to wrote: > MailScanner has some nifty features to disarm web bugs and thinks like > that but would there be a way to simply disarm each and every html link in > an email in such a way that accidental opening is not possible? Take a look at the "yes + yes" options of https://www.mailscanner.info/MailScanner.conf.index.html #Convert Dangerous HTML To Text and also https://www.mailscanner.info/MailScanner.conf.index.html #Convert HTML To Text Antony. -- "Remember: the S in IoT stands for Security." - Jan-Piet Mens Please reply to the list; please *don't* CC me. From mailscanner at barendse.to Fri Feb 4 14:11:00 2022 From: mailscanner at barendse.to (mailscanner at barendse.to) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 15:11:00 +0100 (CET) Subject: HTML links disarm? In-Reply-To: <202202041405.26031.Antony.Stone@mailscanner.open.source.it> References: <202202041405.26031.Antony.Stone@mailscanner.open.source.it> Message-ID: On Fri, 4 Feb 2022, Antony Stone wrote: > On Friday 04 February 2022 at 14:00:22, mailscanner at barendse.to wrote: > >> MailScanner has some nifty features to disarm web bugs and thinks like >> that but would there be a way to simply disarm each and every html link in >> an email in such a way that accidental opening is not possible? > > Take a look at the "yes + yes" options of > https://www.mailscanner.info/MailScanner.conf.index.html > #Convert Dangerous HTML To Text > > and also https://www.mailscanner.info/MailScanner.conf.index.html > #Convert HTML To Text > > > Antony. Thanks! I already have "Convert Dangerous HTML To Text = yes" in my config but that doesn't disarm every link in emails. I am looking to do something like safelinks.protection.outlook.com where *every* link to outside world gets modified. Converting all email into plain text would still leave the links intact. Thanks! From mark at msapiro.net Fri Feb 4 18:09:46 2022 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 10:09:46 -0800 Subject: HTML links disarm? In-Reply-To: References: <202202041405.26031.Antony.Stone@mailscanner.open.source.it> Message-ID: <998aa459-dec9-7831-6623-08557b6c9c82@msapiro.net> On 2/4/22 06:11, mailscanner at barendse.to wrote: > > Thanks!? I already have "Convert Dangerous HTML To Text = yes" in my > config but that doesn't disarm every link in emails.? I am looking to do > something like safelinks.protection.outlook.com where *every* link to > outside world gets modified. Converting all email into plain text would > still leave the links intact. Currently, MailScanner's disarming of links doesn't actually remove the link or modify the target, but rather just changes the displayed text to add a warning. Doing what you want would, I think, require significant code modification. Perhaps we could implement some kind of plugin architecture where you could specify a perl script to be used to filter a message, but that doesn't currently exist. You could probably do something with a milter in your MTA. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From pramod at mindspring.co.za Sat Feb 5 16:13:09 2022 From: pramod at mindspring.co.za (Pramod Daya) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2022 16:13:09 +0000 Subject: SPF checks on Mailscanner Message-ID: Hi Folks, Running MailScanner 5.3.4-3 on Centos 7, I'm using, for SPF checking: pypolicyd-spf-1.3.2-5.el7.noarch python-pyspf-2.0.14-13.el7.noarch Using these policyd-spf.conf settings: debugLevel = 2 defaultSeedOnly = 1 HELO_reject = SPF_Not_pass Mail_From_reject = Fail PermError_reject = False TempError_Defer = False skip_addresses = 127.0.0.0/8,::ffff:127.0.0.0/104,::1 Which seems to work fine, as it issues warnings to servers that aren't authorised to send for domains that don't have SPF records set up correctly. However, when I do a command line test from a remote (unauthorised) server to send mail through this server, it happily accepts the mail, even though the unauthorised server is not in the SPF list. The sending server is not whitelisted, I can't understand why it doesn't get rejected by the SPF check. Some advice or pointers would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. ___________________________________________________ Pramod Daya (CEO) M.Sc. Computer Science (U. of Oregon) Unit 5, Melomed Office Park Punters Way, Kenilworth Cape Town, South Africa 7708 www.mindspring.co.za [cid:image001.png at 01D81ABB.F1FB1480] Work: +27 21 657 1780 Fax: +27 21 671 7599 Cell: +27 83 675 0367 pramod at mindspring.co.za -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 5989 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From shawniverson at summitgrid.com Sat Feb 5 19:35:58 2022 From: shawniverson at summitgrid.com (Shawn Iverson) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:35:58 -0500 Subject: SPF checks on Mailscanner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Since this is concerning pypolicyd-spf and python-pyspf, unless somehow MailScanner is at play here, I don't think this is a MailScanner issue.? Can you bypass MailScanner and test again? On 2/5/22 11:13, Pramod Daya via MailScanner wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > Running MailScanner 5.3.4-3 on Centos 7, I?m using, for SPF checking: > > pypolicyd-spf-1.3.2-5.el7.noarch > > python-pyspf-2.0.14-13.el7.noarch > > Using these policyd-spf.conf settings: > > debugLevel = 2 > > defaultSeedOnly = 1 > > HELO_reject = SPF_Not_pass > > Mail_From_reject = Fail > > PermError_reject = False > > TempError_Defer = False > > skip_addresses = 127.0.0.0/8,::ffff:127.0.0.0/104,::1 > > Which seems to work fine, as it issues warnings to servers that aren?t > authorised to send for domains that don?t have SPF records set up > correctly.? However, when I do a command line test from a remote > (unauthorised) server to send mail through this server, it happily > accepts the mail, even though the unauthorised server is not in the > SPF list. ?The sending server is not whitelisted, I can?t understand > why it doesn?t get rejected by the SPF check. > > Some advice or pointers would be greatly appreciated. > > Thank you. > > *___________________________________________________* > > *Pramod Daya*/(/CEO) > > /M.Sc. Computer Science (U. of Oregon)/ > > Unit 5, Melomed Office Park > > Punters Way, Kenilworth > > Cape Town, South Africa 7708 > > www.mindspring.co.za > > > > **** > > *Work: *?+27 21?657 1780 > > *Fax: *+27 21?671 7599 > > *Cell:*+27 83 675 0367 > > pramod at mindspring.co.za > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 5989 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shawniverson at summitgrid.com Sat Feb 5 19:49:22 2022 From: shawniverson at summitgrid.com (Shawn Iverson) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:49:22 -0500 Subject: HTML links disarm? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Would you like to make a feature request? If so, please visit https://github.com/MailScanner/v5/issues/new/choose I see benefits to such a feature as well as opening up the possibility of using a 3rd party safe link service. On 2/4/22 08:00, mailscanner at barendse.to wrote: > MailScanner has some nifty features to disarm web bugs and thinks like > that but would there be a way to simply disarm each and every html > link in an email in such a way that accidental opening is not possible? > > I know that would remove the pretty pictures and things like that in > emails but I am not bothered by that at all... > > Thanks! > > From mailscanner at barendse.to Mon Feb 7 10:03:45 2022 From: mailscanner at barendse.to (mailscanner at barendse.to) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 11:03:45 +0100 (CET) Subject: HTML links disarm? In-Reply-To: <998aa459-dec9-7831-6623-08557b6c9c82@msapiro.net> References: <202202041405.26031.Antony.Stone@mailscanner.open.source.it> <998aa459-dec9-7831-6623-08557b6c9c82@msapiro.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 4 Feb 2022, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 2/4/22 06:11, mailscanner at barendse.to wrote: >> >> Thanks!? I already have "Convert Dangerous HTML To Text = yes" in my >> config but that doesn't disarm every link in emails.? I am looking to do >> something like safelinks.protection.outlook.com where *every* link to >> outside world gets modified. Converting all email into plain text would >> still leave the links intact. > > Currently, MailScanner's disarming of links doesn't actually remove the > link or modify the target, but rather just changes the displayed text to > add a warning. > > Doing what you want would, I think, require significant code > modification. Perhaps we could implement some kind of plugin > architecture where you could specify a perl script to be used to filter > a message, but that doesn't currently exist. Thanks! Something which breaks the link in a way that it doesn't work without manual intervention would already help. For example changing the http:// into pttp:// requiring the user to manually copy the link and correcting it would already help. They will then have to inspect the link and will see that they are trying to open a link to www.hax0rsinspace.com rather than www.dhl.com From mailscanner at replies.cyways.com Wed Feb 9 15:53:43 2022 From: mailscanner at replies.cyways.com (Peter H. Lemieux) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 10:53:43 -0500 Subject: Problems with RelayCountry Message-ID: <99ec1d63-5650-a5cc-41b1-3f2259729cf8@replies.cyways.com> I installed version 5.4.3 the other day, and now I persistently get this error: Use of uninitialized value in subroutine entry at /usr/local/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/RelayCountry.pm line 219. plugin: eval failed: Can't use string ("") as a subroutine ref while "strict refs" in use at /usr/local/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/RelayCountry.pm line 219. Use of uninitialized value $countries in split at /usr/local/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/RelayCountry.pm line 274. I think it is having trouble finding the IP->Country database. I've tried various things suggested online to no avail. I changed RelayCountry.pm add Fast to the country_db_type line even though it is said to be the default. Didn't help. The required files cc.gif and ip.gif are in /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/IP/Country/Fast. Adding that directory to country_db_path in RelayCountry does not help. I'd like to be able to disable calls to RelayCountry for the time being while I get this problem worked out. I just don't know what changes I need to make to MailScanner.cf to disable it. I can't tell for sure, but I suspect this error causes SpamAssassin to fall over and MailScanner then doesn't scan for spam. Any suggestions either for disabling calls to RelayCountry or for fixing the problem identified in the error? Peter From mailscanner at replies.cyways.com Wed Feb 9 21:31:56 2022 From: mailscanner at replies.cyways.com (Peter H. Lemieux) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 16:31:56 -0500 Subject: Problems with RelayCountry In-Reply-To: <99ec1d63-5650-a5cc-41b1-3f2259729cf8@replies.cyways.com> References: <99ec1d63-5650-a5cc-41b1-3f2259729cf8@replies.cyways.com> Message-ID: <70e27c83-ae4d-5282-31c4-5505fc2297e1@replies.cyways.com> I upgraded SpamAssassin to version 3.4.6 from source. Both "spamassassin --lint" and "MailScanner --lint" no longer report errors. Peter On 2/9/22 10:53, Peter H. Lemieux wrote: > I installed version 5.4.3 the other day, and now I persistently get this > error: > > Use of uninitialized value in subroutine entry at > /usr/local/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/RelayCountry.pm line 219. > plugin: eval failed: Can't use string ("") as a subroutine ref while > "strict refs" in use at > /usr/local/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/RelayCountry.pm line 219. > Use of uninitialized value $countries in split at > /usr/local/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/RelayCountry.pm line 274. From pramod at mindspring.co.za Sun Feb 20 20:45:39 2022 From: pramod at mindspring.co.za (Pramod Daya) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 20:45:39 +0000 Subject: SPF checks on Mailscanner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As a follow up, I found a difference in the way that my Mailscanner implementation was behaving, vs a mailborder implementation. With Mailscanner, the mail was accepted, and then handed over to spamasassin, where the spamassassin rules would trigger and then cause the email to be tagged as spam. In the case of Mailborder, as soon as the ?From:? point in the protocol was reached, the process would stop and the mail got rejected. I was trying to understand why they were behaving differently; but the Spamassassin approach works so I guess I found a solution, and learned a bit more about SPF in the process. Hopefully this will help someone else. Here?s the transcript of what happens: I was running a hand crafted SMTP transaction to test whether SPF tests were being implemented correctly on two different servers. The server I was testing from is not allowed to send mail for this domain (mindspring.co.za) via either server, i.e. mailmaster.mindspring.co.za, or mb1.mindspring.co.za. In the case of the mailmaster server, the mail is accepted by postfix, even though it fails SPF checks. For the second server, viz. mb1.mindspring.co.za, as soon as I submit the "From", it gets rejected by SPF. Is this possibly the mb1 servers is using a newer version of SPF or is this a configuration issue ? I did subsequently find that the SPF checks are working on the first server that seemed to accept the mail (mailmaster.mindspring.co.za), but it got handed to Spamassassin that then rejected the mail because of SPF. ============ Start of transaction on Server Running Mailscanner =================== $ telnet mailmaster.mindspring.co.za 25 Trying 197.155.22.89... Connected to mailmaster.mindspring.co.za. Escape character is '^]'. 220 mailmaster.mindspring.co.za ESMTP Postfix ehlo mindspring.co.za 250-mailmaster.mindspring.co.za 250-PIPELINING 250-SIZE 20971520 250-VRFY 250-ETRN 250-STARTTLS 250-AUTH PLAIN LOGIN 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES 250-8BITMIME 250 DSN mail from: user at mindspring.co.za 250 2.1.0 Ok rcpt to: user at mindspring.co.za 250 2.1.5 Ok data 354 End data with . subject: test 1 . 250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as D6A1743AD04A quit 221 2.0.0 Bye Connection closed by foreign host. ============ End of transaction on Server Running Mailscanner =================== ============ Start of transaction on Server Running Mailborder =================== telnet mb1.mindspring.co.za 25 Trying 178.79.131.19... Connected to mb1.mindspring.co.za. Escape character is '^]'. 220 mail.mb1.mindspring.co.za ESMTP ehlo mindspring.co.za 250-mail.mb1.mindspring.co.za 250-PIPELINING 250-SIZE 52428800 250-ETRN 250-STARTTLS 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES 250-8BITMIME 250-DSN 250 SMTPUTF8 mail from: user at mindspring.co.za 250 2.1.0 Ok rcpt to: user at mindspring.co.za 550 5.7.23 >: Recipient address rejected: Message rejected due to: SPF fail - not authorized. Please see http://www.openspf.net/Whys=helo;id=mindspring.co.za;ip=88.80.187.207;r=> ============ End of transaction on Server Running Mailscanner =================== From: MailScanner On Behalf Of Shawn Iverson via MailScanner Sent: Saturday, 05 February 2022 21:36 To: mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info Cc: Shawn Iverson Subject: Re: SPF checks on Mailscanner Since this is concerning pypolicyd-spf and python-pyspf, unless somehow MailScanner is at play here, I don't think this is a MailScanner issue. Can you bypass MailScanner and test again? On 2/5/22 11:13, Pramod Daya via MailScanner wrote: Hi Folks, Running MailScanner 5.3.4-3 on Centos 7, I?m using, for SPF checking: pypolicyd-spf-1.3.2-5.el7.noarch python-pyspf-2.0.14-13.el7.noarch Using these policyd-spf.conf settings: debugLevel = 2 defaultSeedOnly = 1 HELO_reject = SPF_Not_pass Mail_From_reject = Fail PermError_reject = False TempError_Defer = False skip_addresses = 127.0.0.0/8,::ffff:127.0.0.0/104,::1 Which seems to work fine, as it issues warnings to servers that aren?t authorised to send for domains that don?t have SPF records set up correctly. However, when I do a command line test from a remote (unauthorised) server to send mail through this server, it happily accepts the mail, even though the unauthorised server is not in the SPF list. The sending server is not whitelisted, I can?t understand why it doesn?t get rejected by the SPF check. Some advice or pointers would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. ___________________________________________________ Pramod Daya (CEO) M.Sc. Computer Science (U. of Oregon) Unit 5, Melomed Office Park Punters Way, Kenilworth Cape Town, South Africa 7708 www.mindspring.co.za [cid:image001.png at 01D826AB.2ABF8FD0] Work: +27 21 657 1780 Fax: +27 21 671 7599 Cell: +27 83 675 0367 pramod at mindspring.co.za -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 5989 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From jerry.benton at mailborder.com Mon Feb 21 00:11:15 2022 From: jerry.benton at mailborder.com (Jerry Benton) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 00:11:15 +0000 Subject: SPF checks on Mailscanner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5D75C198-7ECF-4C35-8E08-88D9B79E8286@mailborder.com> Sounds like that Mailborder guy really knows what he is doing :) - Jerry Benton www.mailborder.com On Feb 20, 2022, at 15:45, Pramod Daya via MailScanner > wrote: As a follow up, I found a difference in the way that my Mailscanner implementation was behaving, vs a mailborder implementation. With Mailscanner, the mail was accepted, and then handed over to spamasassin, where the spamassassin rules would trigger and then cause the email to be tagged as spam. In the case of Mailborder, as soon as the ?From:? point in the protocol was reached, the process would stop and the mail got rejected. I was trying to understand why they were behaving differently; but the Spamassassin approach works so I guess I found a solution, and learned a bit more about SPF in the process. Hopefully this will help someone else. Here?s the transcript of what happens: I was running a hand crafted SMTP transaction to test whether SPF tests were being implemented correctly on two different servers. The server I was testing from is not allowed to send mail for this domain (mindspring.co.za) via either server, i.e. mailmaster.mindspring.co.za, or mb1.mindspring.co.za. In the case of the mailmaster server, the mail is accepted by postfix, even though it fails SPF checks. For the second server, viz. mb1.mindspring.co.za, as soon as I submit the "From", it gets rejected by SPF. Is this possibly the mb1 servers is using a newer version of SPF or is this a configuration issue ? I did subsequently find that the SPF checks are working on the first server that seemed to accept the mail (mailmaster.mindspring.co.za), but it got handed to Spamassassin that then rejected the mail because of SPF. ============ Start of transaction on Server Running Mailscanner =================== $ telnet mailmaster.mindspring.co.za 25 Trying 197.155.22.89... Connected to mailmaster.mindspring.co.za. Escape character is '^]'. 220 mailmaster.mindspring.co.za ESMTP Postfix ehlo mindspring.co.za 250-mailmaster.mindspring.co.za 250-PIPELINING 250-SIZE 20971520 250-VRFY 250-ETRN 250-STARTTLS 250-AUTH PLAIN LOGIN 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES 250-8BITMIME 250 DSN mail from: user at mindspring.co.za 250 2.1.0 Ok rcpt to: user at mindspring.co.za 250 2.1.5 Ok data 354 End data with . subject: test 1 . 250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as D6A1743AD04A quit 221 2.0.0 Bye Connection closed by foreign host. ============ End of transaction on Server Running Mailscanner =================== ============ Start of transaction on Server Running Mailborder =================== telnet mb1.mindspring.co.za 25 Trying 178.79.131.19... Connected to mb1.mindspring.co.za. Escape character is '^]'. 220 mail.mb1.mindspring.co.za ESMTP ehlo mindspring.co.za 250-mail.mb1.mindspring.co.za 250-PIPELINING 250-SIZE 52428800 250-ETRN 250-STARTTLS 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES 250-8BITMIME 250-DSN 250 SMTPUTF8 mail from: user at mindspring.co.za 250 2.1.0 Ok rcpt to: user at mindspring.co.za 550 5.7.23 >: Recipient address rejected: Message rejected due to: SPF fail - not authorized. Please seehttp://www.openspf.net/Whys=helo;id=mindspring.co.za;ip=88.80.187.207;r=> ============ End of transaction on Server Running Mailscanner =================== From: MailScanner > On Behalf Of Shawn Iverson via MailScanner Sent: Saturday, 05 February 2022 21:36 To: mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info Cc: Shawn Iverson Subject: Re: SPF checks on Mailscanner Since this is concerning pypolicyd-spf and python-pyspf, unless somehow MailScanner is at play here, I don't think this is a MailScanner issue. Can you bypass MailScanner and test again? On 2/5/22 11:13, Pramod Daya via MailScanner wrote: Hi Folks, Running MailScanner 5.3.4-3 on Centos 7, I?m using, for SPF checking: pypolicyd-spf-1.3.2-5.el7.noarch python-pyspf-2.0.14-13.el7.noarch Using these policyd-spf.conf settings: debugLevel = 2 defaultSeedOnly = 1 HELO_reject = SPF_Not_pass Mail_From_reject = Fail PermError_reject = False TempError_Defer = False skip_addresses = 127.0.0.0/8,::ffff:127.0.0.0/104,::1 Which seems to work fine, as it issues warnings to servers that aren?t authorised to send for domains that don?t have SPF records set up correctly. However, when I do a command line test from a remote (unauthorised) server to send mail through this server, it happily accepts the mail, even though the unauthorised server is not in the SPF list. The sending server is not whitelisted, I can?t understand why it doesn?t get rejected by the SPF check. Some advice or pointers would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. ___________________________________________________ Pramod Daya (CEO) M.Sc. Computer Science (U. of Oregon) Unit 5, Melomed Office Park Punters Way, Kenilworth Cape Town, South Africa 7708 www.mindspring.co.za Work: +27 21 657 1780 Fax: +27 21 671 7599 Cell: +27 83 675 0367 pramod at mindspring.co.za -- MailScanner mailing list mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lee.iitb at gmail.com Mon Feb 21 04:15:00 2022 From: lee.iitb at gmail.com (Thomas Stephen Lee) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 09:45:00 +0530 Subject: Install without prompts In-Reply-To: <073d4a25-ee75-b177-bdaa-909e7130ea64@summitgrid.org> References: <202112111852070061.3B42A6E3@nx33.ace.net.au> <073d4a25-ee75-b177-bdaa-909e7130ea64@summitgrid.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 9:22 PM Shawn Iverson via MailScanner wrote: > > These are packaged for eFa but you can use them in your own MailScanner. > > rpm --import > https://mirrors.efa-project.org/rpm/eFa4/RPM-GPG-KEY-eFa-Project > > curl -L > https://mirrors.efa-project.org/rpm/eFa4/CentOS8/eFa4-centos8.repo -o > /etc/yum.repos.d/eFa4.repo > Hi, Is there a similar repo for CentOS 7 ? Thanks --- Lee From kens at kensnet.org Thu Feb 24 21:29:13 2022 From: kens at kensnet.org (Ken Smith) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 21:29:13 +0000 Subject: MailScanner and SELinux Message-ID: <108e9b02-57ab-06d4-06aa-823e4d87368f@kensnet.org> Hi All, I'm a very grateful MailScanner user of many years. I'm setting up a new server on Rocky Linux 8.5, an EPEL clone. I have had past installations on Centos 6 working with SELinux enabled but on this version I'm getting all manner of Perl related and other complaints from SELinux. I've go it disabled at the moment. Is anyone working on an SELinux policy or could give me some pointers. Or is there some reason that its inappropriate? Many thanks Ken -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From shawniverson at summitgrid.com Thu Feb 24 21:53:29 2022 From: shawniverson at summitgrid.com (Shawn Iverson) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:53:29 -0500 Subject: MailScanner and SELinux In-Reply-To: <108e9b02-57ab-06d4-06aa-823e4d87368f@kensnet.org> References: <108e9b02-57ab-06d4-06aa-823e4d87368f@kensnet.org> Message-ID: Feel free to pick through this module. Most of the rules you need will probably be spamd_update_t and mscan_t https://github.com/E-F-A/v4/blob/master/rpmbuild/SOURCES/eFa-4.0.4/eFa/eFa8.te On 2/24/22 16:29, Ken Smith via MailScanner wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm a very grateful MailScanner user of many years. I'm setting up a > new server on Rocky Linux 8.5, an EPEL clone. I have had past > installations on Centos 6 working with SELinux enabled but on this > version I'm getting all manner of Perl related and other complaints > from SELinux. I've go it disabled at the moment. > > Is anyone working on an SELinux policy or could give me some pointers. > Or is there some reason that its inappropriate? > > Many thanks > > Ken > From kens at kensnet.org Thu Feb 24 23:06:16 2022 From: kens at kensnet.org (Ken Smith) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 23:06:16 +0000 Subject: MailScanner and SELinux In-Reply-To: References: <108e9b02-57ab-06d4-06aa-823e4d87368f@kensnet.org> Message-ID: <0613bc08-0f73-496e-3bee-7fd7da35b1d7@kensnet.org> > > On 2/24/22 16:29, Ken Smith via MailScanner wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I'm a very grateful MailScanner user of many years. I'm setting up a >> new server on Rocky Linux 8.5, an EPEL clone. I have had past >> installations on Centos 6 working with SELinux enabled but on this >> version I'm getting all manner of Perl related and other complaints >> from SELinux. I've go it disabled at the moment. >> >> Is anyone working on an SELinux policy or could give me some >> pointers. Or is there some reason that its inappropriate? >> >> Many thanks >> >> Ken >> > Shawn Iverson via MailScanner wrote: > Feel free to pick through this module. Most of the rules you need will > probably be spamd_update_t and mscan_t > > https://github.com/E-F-A/v4/blob/master/rpmbuild/SOURCES/eFa-4.0.4/eFa/eFa8.te Thank you I'll check that out :-) -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.