Patches item #534577, was opened at 2002-03-25 16:17 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=534577&group_id=103

Category: list administration Group: Mailman 2.0.x Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: James Henstridge (jhenstridge) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Add SpamAssassin filter to mail pipeline

Initial Comment: This filter adds support for discarding or holding spam sent to the mailing list. It contacts a spamd daemon (from SpamAssassin -- http://spamassassin.taint.org) to score the message.

If the score is above a certain threshold (default 10), the message is discarded and an entry is written to the vette log.

If the score is above another lower threshold (default 5), the message is held for moderation.

The SpamAssassin.py file should be installed in Mailman/Handlers/. The LIST_PIPELINE variable in Mailman/Handlers/HandlerAPI.py should be modified to include a 'SpamAssassin' item (I put it just after the existing 'SpamDetect' item).

To change the defaults, the following can be added to the mm_cfg.py file: SPAMASSASSIN_HOST = 'host:port' # how to contact SA SPAMASSASSIN_DISCARD_SCORE = 10 SPAMASSASSIN_HOLD_SCORE = 5

If you don't want to discard messages, then DISCARD_SCORE can be set to something very high (1000 should do it).

It looks the MM2.1 filter APIs have changed a bit, so this filter will need some modifications to work with that version. When I get round to upgrading, I might look into updating it.

Comment By: James Henstridge (jhenstridge) Date: 2002-07-25 16:59

Message: Logged In: YES user_id=146903

Yet another new version that fixes a small typo. With previous messages, you couldn't approve messages that had been identified as spam once (they would get identified again when the queue got processed, instead of passing the message through).

Comment By: James Henstridge (jhenstridge) Date: 2002-07-10 08:19

Message: Logged In: YES user_id=146903

The Mailman installation on mail.gnome.org also uses this filter. I don't think there are any stability problems with the filter.

Comment By: Sean Reifschneider (jafo) Date: 2002-07-10 05:16

Message: Logged In: YES user_id=81797

FYI, I ran the previous version since installation and it seemed to work fine. I didn't run into any problems, with probably 500 messages handled. I've updated to the new version and it seems ok so far, but I've only sent about 10 messages through.

Sean

Comment By: James Henstridge (jhenstridge) Date: 2002-07-03 12:02

Message: Logged In: YES user_id=146903

Yet another version. There were some bugs in handling of certain error conditions when talking to spamd. These would result in exceptions and the messages staying in the delivery queue :(

With the new version, the message will be passed through unchecked under these conditions, and a message will be added to the error log.

Comment By: Sean Reifschneider (jafo) Date: 2002-06-13 05:48

Message: Logged In: YES user_id=81797

FYI: I've been running the 2002-05-14 version of this patch with spamassassin 2.20 for the last day on our main mailman box and it seems to be working great.

Comment By: James Henstridge (jhenstridge) Date: 2002-05-14 14:04

Message: Logged In: YES user_id=146903

This version is essentially the same as the previous version, but adds compatibility with python > 1.5.2, which doesn't like you passing two arguments to socket.connect().

Comment By: James Henstridge (jhenstridge) Date: 2002-04-27 14:17

Message: Logged In: YES user_id=146903

Just attached my updated version of the patch. This version requires SpamAssassin 2.20 (for the extra commands that the spamd daemon understands). It now displays a list of which rules were triggered for held messages, and can give messages from list members a bonus (defaults to 2), so that they are less likely to get held as spam.

Comment By: James Henstridge (jhenstridge) Date: 2002-03-26 09:21

Message: Logged In: YES user_id=146903

There is a fairly easy optimisation for this filter that I missed when writing it. It calls str() on the message object twice. It would be quicker to call str() on the message once.

You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=534577&group_id=103