From: /dev/rob0 (rob0gmx.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 06 2006 - 11:10:49 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Monday 06 November 2006 00:31, Rajesh Bhardwaj wrote:
> Consider something like this:
> * X-Spam-Level: is the added header
> * Let's say if the client/server that connects to smtpd didn't say
> HELO/EHLO,
> one could add NO_HELO to X-Spam-Level

Safe and reasonable to use "smtpd_helo_required = yes". Even spamware
and poorly-written MUAs use HELO.

> * If it didn't say HELO/EHLO with FQDN, one could add NO_FQDN to
> X-Spam-Level
> * If it didn't have forward DNS (the HELO), one could add NO_FORWARD

Likewise, safe and reasonable to use reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname at
this time. Don't accept things in SMTP which are obviously spam. I'm
not having any false positives from this, not even from MSexChange
sites.

> * If the reverse of the forward didn't match, one could add
> REVERSE_MISMATCH * If it didn't have reverse, on could add NO_REVERSE
> etc..
>
> http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2001-03/0377.html

2001 was a long time ago.

> Is there is any solution for this.

http://www.policyd-weight.org/ does quite a lot of this. However, its
focus is also on rejecting spam in SMTP. If you want to accept and tag
the spam, you might have to adjust the code a bit.
--
    Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless
    "/dev/rob0" or "not-spam" is in Subject: header

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]