[milters] Archive

Lists Index Date Thread Search

Article: 1064
From: Anthony Howe
Date: 2006-07-21 04:27:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Q: separate milter-link policy for +test-links?

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

Alex Broens wrote:
> On 7/21/2006 10:04 AM, Anthony Howe wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I agree.. discarding hits you back when you least expect it. especially 
> when URL FPs (depending on your traffic, user base, etc) are not very 
> frequent but when they hit you, they hit you bad.

Yes, but the BL tests are vasty different compared to the test-links 
option.

>> 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.
> 
> yep. and X-header which can be use to score and avoid eg: SA's slow 
> lookups would, imo, be a plus.

milter-link already has the X-milter-link-Report: header for policy=tag 
and policy=none. This would suffice for the purpose of SpamAssassin scoring.

-- 
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