From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 12 06:09:42 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B27106564A for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:09:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (gate6.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804C68FC1F for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:09:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m3C69avc045989; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:09:38 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.5.2 smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk m3C69avc045989 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=infracaninophile.co.uk; s=200708; t=1207980578; bh=Bn4z5WsAB6dVtX he9MpfcWT+4B3C4Gc5CiRPUHKFGQY=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version: To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Cc:Content-Type: Date:From:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Mime-Version:References:To; z=Mes sage-ID:=20<4800521B.1080709@infracaninophile.co.uk>|Date:=20Sat,=2 012=20Apr=202008=2007:09:31=20+0100|From:=20Matthew=20Seaman=20|Organization:=20Infracaninophile|User -Agent:=20Thunderbird=202.0.0.12=20(X11/20080310)|MIME-Version:=201 .0|To:=20Robert=20Davison=20|CC:=20free bsd-questions@freebsd.org|Subject:=20Re:=20Milters=20or=20SpamAssas sin=20plugings|References:=20<501581.61074.qm@web25009.mail.ukl.yah oo.com>|In-Reply-To:=20<501581.61074.qm@web25009.mail.ukl.yahoo.com >|X-Enigmail-Version:=200.95.6|Content-Type:=20multipart/signed=3B= 20micalg=3Dpgp-sha256=3B=0D=0A=20protocol=3D"application/pgp-signat ure"=3B=0D=0A=20boundary=3D"------------enigF4072058DC74FA9F8005DDF 3"; b=w+SgwqOuLBxPEsWVO6/oXI0/bRWqx8ph2rWGnkg/9VB5vRlJ3YZTQaTbJcK0K +KY2jBKVi9OFbu4QlOWVPkI7J0c0mC8ll6HcWjTqqGxYzjLkaXU0sExUv1QRxlmTe7X h2Ix8G0hBGOyJgmhJ11qKE+HfVcKO4M6RG0dKZmeVn8= Message-ID: <4800521B.1080709@infracaninophile.co.uk> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:09:31 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman Organization: Infracaninophile User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080310) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Davison References: <501581.61074.qm@web25009.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <501581.61074.qm@web25009.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigF4072058DC74FA9F8005DDF3" X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:::1]); Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:09:38 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/6713/Sat Apr 12 04:09:20 2008 on happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VERIFIED,NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.2.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Milters or SpamAssassin plugings X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:09:43 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigF4072058DC74FA9F8005DDF3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Robert Davison wrote: > I'm running the base Sendmail with Mailscanner and SpamAssassin from > the ports. >=20 > A simple question.... >=20 > I'm installing SPF to help the fight against spam. >=20 > Which is the most efficient way of doing it.....Sendmail milter or > the p5-Mail SpamAssassin plug-in. They both do the same, but is one a > better way than the other ? Ah -- actually there is a crucial difference in the way SpamAssassin and milter-spf work. SpamAssassin uses the SPF status of a message to add to the spam score it calculates -- typically, a message which passes all the SPF checks has an approximately zero result on Spam scoring, as will a message where there is no SPF stuff available at all; but one which fails the SPF tests will get about 3 spam points. (Which means that even a message failing SPF checks can be passed as ham) milter-spf however operates in a binary fashion -- anything that fails is rejected, anything that passes is accepted. In general I prefer the SpamAssassin behaviour -- not all the world has immediately accepted SPF as a good tool against spam; there are any numbe= r of edge cases where a legitimate message can contradict what the SPF settings say (mail forwarding is a particular problem) and one of the groups that has adopted SPF most wholeheartedly are in fact, the Spammers= themselves. SpamAssassin processing is however much heavier on system resources than milter-spf. Cheers, Matthew --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW --------------enigF4072058DC74FA9F8005DDF3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.8 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEAREIAAYFAkgAUiAACgkQ8Mjk52CukIyn4QCdEr3NLb85utZsFYDW/9jlYnxT pNoAn2BHS/Bbl3aYl6k3GAld2LYfnYar =U7WH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigF4072058DC74FA9F8005DDF3--