[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 16:45:17 +0200
Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:

> On 2021-07-05 10:06:24 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:

> > A more sensible antispam filter might consider a mismatched reverse
> > to be one potential factor in deciding whether a given message is
> > "spam". In the absence of any other factors, it shouldn't be enough
> > to reject a message.  But if the same message has other risk
> > factors, then together they might be enough to justify that
> > judgment.  
> Unfortunately postfix cannot do that (it just has
> reject_unknown_client_hostname, but otherwise doesn't allow
> the user to control how the information is obtained and used).
Exim4 can either reject or add a warning header, which spamassassin can
be told to look for.

Having said that, I gave up on SA after a couple of months. That really
*was* high-maintenance. I also prefer not to filter on content, as it's
difficult to avoid false positives.


Reply to: