[milters] Archive

Lists Index Date Thread Search

Article: 1063
From: Anthony Howe
Date: 2006-07-21 04:04:27 -0400
Subject: Q: separate milter-link policy for +test-links?

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

Daniel Krones has suggested to me that it might be better to have a 
separate policy for +test-links disjoint from the URI BL policy. I'm 
sort of on the fence with this one.

Part of me says, sure why not? Might get more people to try +test-links 
without weakening the URI BL policy.

But then the purest in me says no. If a link is bad from a valid sender, 
then rejecting that message would notify them that they probably made a 
mistake and to try again. However, discarding as Daniel does would 
probably wouldn't help notify the sender.

So I'm looking for the opinion of milter-link users. Simplicity or 
flexibility?

> Is there a way to have separate policies for milter-link?  One policy
> for RBL check results and a second (different) policy for the
> -test-links option?  I like them both by the way.
> 
> I mostly trust the results from some of the RBL's and prefer to simply
> discard the bad messages but don't completely trust the -test-links
> test because it is too easy for a link to be accidentally broken by
> the sender.  I would prefer the -test-links option policy to be a
> modified mail header X-milter-link- something so I can put the ones
> flagged as simply broken links into a user viewable spam folder.
> 


-- 
Anthony C Howe          Skype: SirWumpus                    SnertSoft
+33 6 11 89 73 78         AIM: SirWumpus    Sendmail Milter Solutions
http://www.snert.com/     ICQ: 7116561
     http://www.snertsoft.com/

Lists Index Date Thread Search