RE: [Sheflug] Spam filtering

["Morris, David (Allvac, UK)" <david [at] xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barrie Bremner [mailto:baz-sheflug [at] barriebremner.com] 
> Sent: 02 August 2003 18:13
> To: shef-lug [at] list.sheflug.org.uk
> Subject: RE: [Sheflug] Spam filtering
> 
> 
> >>>>> "David" == David Morris <Morris> writes:
> 
>     David> Barrie, Just out of curiosity, what qmail config changes
>     David> did you make? Was it simply a case of piping the incoming
>     David> message to spamassassin (and if so, how)?
> 
> I initially had a Perl script which called Mail::SpamAssassin 
> to check each message and filtered to various mboxes using 
> Mail::Audit this was called from the .qmail file.
> 
> My web/mail host now has the Spam Assassin spamd running, so
> I use spamc from the .qmail to pipe all mail through spamd, 
> then into another perl script which delivers the mail using 
> Mail::Audit.
> 
> A simple .qmail example is:
> 
> |/usr/bin/spamc
> &user

Y'know... I was always under the assumption (and LWQ appears to confirm
my thought) that the above would send two messages - one into spamc and
one to user@...

> 
> That should pipe mail through spamd, tag the mail and then 
> deliver all mail to user [at] localhost.
> 
> Check the qmail dot-qmail man pages (http://qmail.org) for 
> the syntax of the .qmail files.

[snip]
 
> No, qmail doesn't need patching - it's all handled through 
> the normal .qmail files.

I was thinking that the QMAILQUEUE patch (IIRC) was needed to allow
interception of the message between the incoming point and the delivery
phase. Courier (and others) directly support filtering to allow that,
but qmail sans patch doesn't.

-- 
D

___________________________________________________________________

Sheffield Linux User's Group -
http://www.sheflug.co.uk/mailfaq.html

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.