Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: LDA understanding

Expand Messages
  • Reindl Harald
    ... sorry, yes, i reverted the terminology however, in the order of Sieve it would be way too late to call SpamAssassin because you CAN NOT reject at this time
    Message 1 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Am 14.03.2013 21:04, schrieb Ansgar Wiechers:
      > On 2013-03-14 Reindl Harald wrote:
      >> Am 14.03.2013 17:07, schrieb Kris Deugau:
      >>> Jerry wrote:
      >>>> Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For
      >>>> relatively fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot
      >>>> and Sieve. From what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been
      >>>> maintained in over a decade.
      >>>
      >>> Sieve can't call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by design. IMO
      >>> the inability to call any external filtering programs (even from a
      >>> restricted whitelist) makes overall mail filtering significantly
      >>> harder
      >>
      >> usually sieve comes AFTER SpamAssassin because it is a broken setup
      >> using a pre queue filter because it results in become a backscatter
      >> and you are usually not permitted by law accept a message with "250
      >> OK" and drop it silent
      >
      > That would be a post-queue filter. A pre-queue filter rejects, so you
      > don't become a backscatter source

      sorry, yes, i reverted the terminology

      however, in the order of Sieve it would be way too late to
      call SpamAssassin because you CAN NOT reject at this time
      and spam has to be REJETED long before LDA / Sieve
    • Kris Deugau
      ... By harder I mean that you end up going to a great deal of trouble to properly deal with a message that user A really, really wants in their Inbox, and
      Message 2 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Reindl Harald wrote:
        > Am 14.03.2013 17:07, schrieb Kris Deugau:
        >> Sieve can't call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by design. IMO the
        >> inability to call any external filtering programs (even from a
        >> restricted whitelist) makes overall mail filtering significantly harder

        By "harder" I mean that you end up going to a great deal of trouble to
        properly deal with a message that user A really, really wants in their
        Inbox, and which user B never ever EVER wants to see at all.

        > usually sieve comes AFTER SpamAssassin because it is a broken
        > setup using a pre queue filter because it results in become
        > a backscatter and you are usually not permitted by law
        > accept a message with "250 OK" and drop it silent

        Laws vary by region. So far as my personal mail handling goes, I also
        want to divert eg mailing lists like this one to a mail folder *before*
        calling an expensive content filter on a message that isn't spam.

        Wearing my ISP mail admin hat, we don't use procmail, but the mail flow
        would be entirely compatible; there are several stages of filtering and
        each one can short-circuit the process and deliver the message (either
        to the Inbox or the Spam folder), instead of having to run *everything*
        through an expensive SpamAssassin scan.

        -kgd
      • Reindl Harald
        ... forget the law if you would be my mailadmin and kill messages with SpamAssassin without reject them properly so a sane sender would get a bounce from it s
        Message 3 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Am 14.03.2013 21:31, schrieb Kris Deugau:
          > Reindl Harald wrote:
          >> usually sieve comes AFTER SpamAssassin because it is a broken
          >> setup using a POST queue filter because it results in become
          >> a backscatter and you are usually not permitted by law
          >> accept a message with "250 OK" and drop it silent
          >
          > Laws vary by region. So far as my personal mail handling goes, I also
          > want to divert eg mailing lists like this one to a mail folder *before*
          > calling an expensive content filter on a message that isn't spam

          forget the law

          if you would be my mailadmin and kill messages with SpamAssassin
          without reject them properly so a sane sender would get a bounce
          from it's own mailserver i would kill you
        • Tom Hendrikx
          ... To complete this discussion, recent sieve standards/proposals have support for a generic interface to external spam and virus filters such as spamassassin,
          Message 4 of 15 , Mar 15, 2013
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            On 03/14/2013 05:07 PM, Kris Deugau wrote:
            > Jerry wrote:
            >> Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For relatively
            >> fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot and Sieve. From
            >> what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been maintained in over a
            >> decade.
            >
            > Sieve can't call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by design. IMO the
            > inability to call any external filtering programs (even from a
            > restricted whitelist) makes overall mail filtering significantly harder.
            >
            > -kgd
            >

            To complete this discussion, recent sieve standards/proposals have
            support for a generic interface to external spam and virus filters such
            as spamassassin, called at sieve runtime (i.e. not decisions based on
            earlier added headers), see [1].

            Pigeonhole sieve for Dovecot [2] supports this. pigoenhole also has
            experimental support calling arbitrary external programs in an
            administrator-controlled way [3], which I use with great success to add
            spamtrap messages to a database.

            I hope this might convince people to try sieve once more as a
            replacement for procmail ;)

            [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5235
            [2] http://pigeonhole.dovecot.org/
            [3] http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Pigeonhole/Sieve/Plugins/Extprograms

            --
            Regards,
            Tom
          • James Griffin
            [--------- Thu 14.Mar 13 at 12:07:14 -0400 Kris Deugau :---------] ... Personally, I still use procmail and use it to pipe mail through spamassassin, and also
            Message 5 of 15 , Mar 15, 2013
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              [--------- Thu 14.Mar'13 at 12:07:14 -0400 Kris Deugau :---------]

              > Jerry wrote:
              > > Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For relatively
              > > fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot and Sieve. From
              > > what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been maintained in over a
              > > decade.
              >
              > Sieve can't call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by design. IMO the
              > inability to call any external filtering programs (even from a
              > restricted whitelist) makes overall mail filtering significantly harder.
              >
              > -kgd

              Personally, I still use procmail and use it to pipe mail through
              spamassassin, and also use it in conjuction with Dovecot LDA:

              At the the top the procmailrc define the $DELIVER variable to
              /usr/libexec/dovecot/deliver .

              Then a simple rule:

              :0
              * ^List-Id:.*some.list.id
              | $DELIVER -m mailbox

              The -m switch automatically create non-existing Maildir++ mailboxes
              should the not already be present. I Think it needs to be enabled in one
              of the configuration files for Dovecot.

              It works nicely, but then i'm sure the Dovecot sieve implementations
              work well too; i've not tried them yet.


              Cheers, Jamie.

              --
              James Griffin: jmz at kontrol.kode5.net
              jmzgriffin at gmail.com

              A4B9 E875 A18C 6E11 F46D B788 BEE6 1251 1D31 DC38
            • Jerry
              On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:27:59 +0000 ... Sieve will happily create any non-existing mailboxes. Sieve is far more robust than Procmail; however, you do have to do
              Message 6 of 15 , Mar 15, 2013
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:27:59 +0000
                James Griffin articulated:

                > [--------- Thu 14.Mar'13 at 12:07:14 -0400 Kris Deugau :---------]
                >
                > > Jerry wrote:
                > > > Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For
                > > > relatively fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use
                > > > Dovecot and Sieve. From what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't
                > > > even been maintained in over a decade.
                > >
                > > Sieve can't call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by design. IMO
                > > the inability to call any external filtering programs (even from a
                > > restricted whitelist) makes overall mail filtering significantly
                > > harder.
                > >
                > > -kgd
                >
                > Personally, I still use procmail and use it to pipe mail through
                > spamassassin, and also use it in conjuction with Dovecot LDA:
                >
                > At the the top the procmailrc define the $DELIVER variable to
                > /usr/libexec/dovecot/deliver .
                >
                > Then a simple rule:
                >
                > :0
                > * ^List-Id:.*some.list.id
                > | $DELIVER -m mailbox
                >
                > The -m switch automatically create non-existing Maildir++ mailboxes
                > should the not already be present. I Think it needs to be enabled in
                > one of the configuration files for Dovecot.
                >
                > It works nicely, but then i'm sure the Dovecot sieve implementations
                > work well too; i've not tried them yet.

                Sieve will happily create any non-existing mailboxes. Sieve is far more
                robust than Procmail; however, you do have to do a bit of reading to
                fully grasp what it can do.

                --
                Jerry ✌
                postfix-user@...
                _____________________________________________________________________
                TO REPORT A PROBLEM see http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
                TO (UN)SUBSCRIBE see http://www.postfix.org/lists.html
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.