spamassassin-users October 2010 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > spamassassin-users archives
spamassassin-users: Re: new install

Re: new install

From: Karsten Bräckelmann <guenther_at_nospam>
Date: Wed Oct 06 2010 - 03:24:07 GMT

On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 04:27 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 21:09 -0400, dhottinger@... wrote:

> > [...] I did have some mail going to /opt/spam, however it was
> > internal mail. So I added our domain to the file:
> > whitelist_from *
> What Jason said. Do NOT do this. This is the most obvious and often

Since it has come to my attention, the previous sentence might be

I do not object to what Jason said. In fact, I fully agree with what he
wrote, just felt some additional info might be warranted. "This" in all
above sentences refer to the OPs whitelist_from, the unconstrained
variant that *never* should be used without a really solid reason.
Especially *not* with the recipient's domain.

> abused forgery of a sender. IFF you really need white-listing at all,
> use one of the constrained variants, but not the plain _from one.
> Besides, if you even need something like that, your problem usually is
> something else. Like outgoing SMTP equals MX, or scanning outbound mail.
> Both can easily be fixed my using SMTP AUTH.

-- char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4"; main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1: (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}