Re: Klezmail with forged envelope
Rick Moen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.exim.spamassassin |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Quoting Tim Jackson ([email protected]): > > users I need to protect from themselves. > > My feelings precisely, way back when I first started looking into all this > stuff (though things have since changed). [MS-Windows malware:] > But back then I decided that although it may not harm me, the fact is > that there *are* viruses around and I don't want the junk in my inbox > - it may not hurt but it's as bad as spam. For all practical purposes, it _is_ spam. Thus, precisely, my point: As far as I can tell, the same SMTP-callout, header-sanity, and body-text semantics checks effective against other junkmail should catch idiotic mail directly and indirectly resulting from malware. I'll defer importing into my system any MS-Windows anti-malware cantrips (e.g., ClamAV) unless and until they have compelling advantages, on the above grounds as well as taste and also a desire to avoid unwarranted system complexity. Thank you for the reference to your SA bogus-virus-warnings ruleset, which sounds useful. I haven't yet gotten around to writing Exim4 ACLs to eliminate arriving-from-elsewhere mail with my own env sender. I tend to be conservative with mail-system changes when possible, since screwups can be so painful for myself _and_ my other users (especially when I'm new to Exim4, and it has so many new features). Honestly, has nobody on this list yet written and tested such a thing? [Your own Exim rules:] > - reject your own domain name(s) given in remote HELOs (this catches a lot > of recent viral junk) > > - use Exiscan to block "bad" extensions > > Those alone clean up a lot of rubbish. Would you do me the favour of posting those, just so I can see a working model? Thanks. -- Cheers, No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. Rick Moen We do concede, though, that a large number of electrons [email protected] were terribly inconvenienced.