Re: [summaries: [SpamCop summary report]]

[Jonathan Larmour <jifl@jifvik.org>]

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
> 
> cgf wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Is there a class of spamassassin test we're not using yet?  DNSBL?
>>>URLDNSBL?  DCC/Pyzor/etc.?  Can qmail callout-verify MAIL FROM:
>>>senders like exim can?
>>
>>/var/log/maillog reports blocks due to URIBL_* and blocks due to
>>BL_IN_SPAMCOP wouldn't that indicate that both are active?
> 
> 
> The DCC/Pyzor/Razor2 stuff is worth adding, if it's not there already.

Indeed. I've used Razor2 happily. I haven't tried Pyzor or DCC. Checking 
against three different checksums may add up to a fair few resources, but 
probably less than letting spams through :).

This may be useful:
http://spamassassinbook.packtpub.com/chapter11_preview.htm

>>qpsmtpd verifies RCPT TO: .  I have some from addresses blocked.  I
>>don't know what you mean by callout-verify.
> 
> 
> Exim verifies the MAIL FROM: record, by trying to call out to the MX
> server for the claimed originator domain, to try to deliver a dummy
> message back to the claimed email address.  It can dispose of or mark
> email whose originating address was fake.  My spam file contains many
> hits of this criterion, which spamassassin can incorporate via bayes
> or direct header-testing clauses.

Sounds expensive for a busy mail hub like sourceware though.

Jifl
-- 
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine