Re: richiesta ordine (fwd)

Jim Popovitch <[email protected]> Mon, 03 Dec 2018 16:12:36 -0500

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.user.laptop
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 22:05 +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2018, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 21:38 +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > > I never got any patch of you for our anti spam measures, neither
> > > do I
> > > got something from Dave. 
> > > 
> > > Alex - Debian Listmaster
> > 
> > Patch?   I think you've identified the problem.
> > 
> > A start would be to tighten or remove any out-of-the box changes
> > made to
> > spamassassin. Let's be clear, your current setup only set a score of
> > 2
> > for an email that:
> > 
> > 1) contained a shortened URL
> > 2) was From: a freemail address
> > 3) fails SPF for outlook.it
> > 4) contains blacklisted received headers (ZEN, PBL, Barraacuda)
> > 5) promotes Instagram to a technical laptop discussion list.
> > 
> > That email should have scored at least a 5 or 6 in stock
> > Spamassassin
> > rules.
> 
> We can give it a try, just for this list. But tbh, you have really no
> idea how much spam we catch.

That's good, and Thank you for that.

> > 
> > Further, email headers show you have Amavis with a threshold score
> > of 5.3 and Spamassasin with a threshold of 4.0.  Which one will
> > "win"?
> > 
> > But really, you would be better served by just enabling some RBL
> > checks in Spamassassin and getting rid of Amavis.
> 
> Getting rid of amavis wouldn't change anything. 
> We would still call SA. 

Why involve Amavis then?  If it's not being used, then it's just another
potential point of failure in the mail process.

-Jim P.

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)