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

Re: LDA understanding

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
    • 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 2 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
      • 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 3 of 15 , Mar 15, 2013
        • 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 4 of 15 , Mar 15, 2013
          • 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 5 of 15 , Mar 15, 2013
            • 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.