Skip to main content

email - Is This Feasible - Running MailWash on a dedicated machine to pre-check



Is This Feasible - Running MailWash on a dedicated machine to pre-check 80-100 email accounts before end-users check with Outlook?




We have some major SPAM issues at my company with some users receiving over 1000 SPAM messages per day. Our mail is web-based and managed by a local ISP that does not offer any SPAM filtering at all. All user are required to check their mail with Outlook 2003/2007.



What are some of the issues that I might face if I run MailWAsh on a dedicated machine to precheck everyones mail numerous times per day. If you arent familiar with MailWash, thats exactly what it does, although it is meant to run locally on each machine. It prechecks mail, weeds out SPAM, and leaves legimate mail. When the user send/receives in Outlook, they hopefully receive only the legit mail left on the server.


Answer



Yes. It's pretty much the same way that I have my family's postfix/linux mail server set; due to some bad filtering when I first started, mailscanner/clamav simply flags the message as spam and gives it a meta heading with a spam score. When the user's client accesses it, a rule in the client filters the spam into the trash bin automatically where the user can retrieve it if they think it was a false positive.



Now, a better solution would be to switch to a host that at least scans your incoming mail, or if you have control over your DNS zone, then you could always just route your mail through a server that you have set up with mailscanner or similar, strip/quarantine the mail, and THEN roue to the Exchange server.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able