Re: RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dan Mahoney, System Admin schrieb:

> Livejournal's purely a mail forwarding service (i.e. there's no way to
> POP/IMAP that account)

As far as I know, there are mails originating from LJ itself (eg notifications etc)?

> and if they can't effect proper controls on how
> mail is sent through them, then they shouldn't be trusted at all.
>
> On my end, I have degrees of control (false MXes, Blacklists,
> whitelists, greylists, sender callbacks, etc). I have no such control
> over the LJ MX'es.

Correct. But by setting (in your local.cf or equivalent)

| trusted_networks 204.9.177.18

you are telling SpamAssassin that this relay is not operated by a spammer and that it should apply all black-/whitelist rules etc. to the IP address one more hop away. Then, in the context of SpamAssassin, you regain full control of connection-oriented rules.

Do you need help?
In addition to our free technical library, Pantek provides professional IT services to companies who utilize Open Source software: Learn more about Pantek's Technical Support offerings Place an order for 24/7/365 Technical Support here Learn more about Pantek, who we are, and what we do Chat with a Live Operator Related spamassassin.apache.org Links users Request more information about Pantek

That's not fully equivalent to having the actual "spamming connection" to deal with, but as close as it gets -- if you need it "closer", you should not use forwarding services.

Forwarding services are edge case in spamfiltering. Usually, such a service is itself perfectly trustworthy and not the actual source of spam, and care must be taken not to unduly penalize these services for forwarded spam.

> I've proposed a reporting plugin on the sa-users list, that allows (both
> for yourself, as well as other whitelists) for the list-owner to be
> notified with details of high-spam activity (at which point, I guess,
> you guys could pass that on to your whitelisted groups, and/or adjust
> categories accordingly.

As I've answered before: That's already on the todo list. However, the main problem is not the plugin per se (technically, that is rather simple), but identifying trustworthy submitters.

• -- Matthias

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHFb2/xbHw2nyi/okRAoA7AKDUID8Zyc1vBt+w1qmbP3rrCuxkbQCdFonl PQENNrT9wkrCjvJ2qgnC4K4=
=oEOM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received on Wed Oct 17 03:47:29 2007