[milters] Archive

Lists Index Date Thread Search

Article: 84
From: Alexander Bochmann
Date: 2004-09-23 06:15:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [LFN14080312] milter-spamc setup generating false positives

Removal...........: milters-request@milter.info?subject=remove
More information..: http://www.milter.info/#Support

...on Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 11:10:03AM +0200, Frank Heydlauf wrote:

 > > The X-Spam-Flag, if already present, is always overridden by 
 > > milter-spamc, so a spammer attempting to slip by milter-spamc and 
 > I think assuming a spammer would not set "X-Spam-Flag: no" in his
 > mail would be naive.

Read again. milter-spamc doesn't assume anything, 
it replaces any header that might already be present 
with it's own values. How else can you be shure it's 
your own spam evaluation you're working with when 
you're filtering the mail later on?

 > And why should I scan a message again if it's already marked as 
 > spam (here: containing X-Spam-Flag:)?

Because you don't want to rely on external data? 
After all, your definition of spam might differ 
from someone else's.

 > But fully regardless if it's wrong or naive - there are countless 
 > exim installations with the setup mentioned above and the inherent
 > danger of causing false positives if they receive mails already
 > filtered by a milter setup in the way you recommend.

Somehow, I think that's their problem if they 
make blind assumptions on how an incoming mail 
will look like.


Lists Index Date Thread Search