Re: [AMaViS-user] Selective spam kill and defanging; based on hits; is it possible?

[Callum <ca...@sw...>]

Much obliged Mark.  Is there any documentation about these features available 
as I can only find some release notes and a very brief description.

Thanks.



On Monday 31 July 2006 11:36, Mark Martinec wrote:
> Calum,
>
> > If that is the case, it's a shame as Amavis-new is very flexible
> > otherwise. It seems quite restrictive to aggregate all the spam related
> > actions under three arbitrary catergories.  Whilst having a tiered
> > approach is good, the lack of ability to choose what each level ...
>
> With the invention of content categories and associated actions
> back at 2.4.0 (see release notes) (and a fix for CC_SPAMMY at 2.4.1)
> this area became much more flexible. In your case the relevant
> default setting is:
>
>   %defang_by_ccat = (
>     CC_VIRUS,      sub { c('defang_virus')          || c('defang_all') },
>     CC_BANNED,     sub { c('defang_banned')         || c('defang_all') },
>     CC_SPAM,       sub { c('defang_spam')           || c('defang_all') },
>     CC_SPAMMY,     sub { c('defang_spam')           || c('defang_all') },
>     CC_BADH,       sub { c('defang_bad_header')     || c('defang_all') },
>     CC_UNCHECKED,  sub { c('defang_undecipherable') || c('defang_all') },
>     CC_CATCHALL,   sub { c('defang_all') },
>   );
>
>
> (btw, the CC_SPAM is associated with kill_level, CC_SPAMMY with tag2_level,
> and "CC_SPAMMY,1" is associated with a new (rarely used) tag3_level)
>
> > If a definitive answer can be had at some point that'd be good, and if
> > it's a no, treat this message as a feature request: tag levels and their
> > associated actions should be user defined with the current settings as
> > the default. Much like the policy banks are really.
>
> Actually, defanging at tag2 level is already a default:
>
> amavisd-new-2.4.1 release notes
>
> - revert a change introduced with 2.4.0, which was adding address
> extensions at CC_SPAM, i.e. when score exceeds kill level. Previously
> (2.3.3) address extensions were inserted at tag2 level. Implemented by a
> new mechanism: a new major contents category CC_SPAMMY is inserted just
> below the CC_SPAM, where CC_SPAMMY is controlled by tag2_level and CC_SPAM
> continues to be selected at kill_level. Also spam defanging (if enabled) is
> now activated at CC_SPAMMY and no longer at CC_SPAM (which was on a TODO
> list for some time); undesired change in 2.4.0 reported and changes tested
> by Mario Liehr;
>
> For more flexibility, one may modify %defang_by_ccat.
>
>   Mark