[dspam-users] Re: DSPAM Relay

Bill,

Looks like your needs are similar to mine, so I'll be following this
discussion closely. What I need is a relay that tags the spam with a
score, so I can accumulate statistics on different sender domains. I was
told that DSPAM can do as well "out of the box" as SpamAssassin, but I
haven't confirmed that. I expect very few of my users at box67.com will
want to bother with training the filter, but having an option to do so will
be nice. I am surprised that there isn't a dictionary available that is
up-to-date on current spam, and suitable for all but the most demanding of
users.

I would be willing to pay someone to maintain such a dictionary and allow
others to copy it as needed.

-- Dave
************************************************************ *
* David MacQuigg, PhD email: david_macquigg at yahoo.com * *
* President, Open-Mail dot org phone: USA 520-721-4583 * * *
* Admin, Box67 dot com * * *
* 9320 East Mikelyn Lane * * *
* Tucson, Arizona 85710 *
************************************************************ *

At 08:02 AM 12/19/2005 -0800, you wrote:

>I've managed to bumble my way to a working DSPAM relay
>system, and am pleased with what I am seeing. My
>original requirements were for a minimal amount of
>administrative overhead, so I am using a single
>virtual uid to process all mail (ServerParameters
>"--user spambox --deliver=innocent -d %u"). This
>appears to be working great, but now I am asked if we
>can use this global user for most people yet also
>allow for individual users for our "squeaky wheels".
>I am guessing I need a merged group but have not
>managed to develop a working solution. Is it possible
>to somehow configure spambox to be the default for all
>users except those we specify, and how? I suppose I'd
>have to modify ServerParameters back to --user $u, add
>a group spambox:merged:*, and add virtual_uids for the
>exception users but have not managed to come up with a
>configuration that works. Any tips on how I would
>accomplish this would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Thanks
Received on Mon Dec 19 12:29:19 2005