Jeff75

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2003
555
0
166
I don't believe SpamAssassin filters email on mail forwarders. Is this correct? If so, is there anyway to modify it so it will filter them?
 

mobex

Member
Apr 26, 2003
10
0
151
Originally posted by Jeff75
I don't believe SpamAssassin filters email on mail forwarders. Is this correct? If so, is there anyway to modify it so it will filter them?
Spamassassin has filtered forwarders for me. I have a block in place that forwards any mail that has been tagged as spam to a separate spam account (this is not spambox.) This includes email to forwarding email accounts. It has reduced spam to all email accounts while piling up the spam in one account for weeding. SA has been really good (especially 2.60) in weeding out spam. I don't know why SA wouldn't filter email before forwarding for you.
 

goodmove

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2003
643
4
168
Re: Re: SpamAssassin and Forwarders

Originally posted by mobex
Spamassassin has filtered forwarders for me. I have a block in place that forwards any mail that has been tagged as spam to a separate spam account (this is not spambox.) This includes email to forwarding email accounts. It has reduced spam to all email accounts while piling up the spam in one account for weeding. SA has been really good (especially 2.60) in weeding out spam. I don't know why SA wouldn't filter email before forwarding for you.
In your case it is the mailbox where you are redirecting the spam to that is getting filtered by SA, not the forwarder.

You may find the outcome different if you try an external mailbox to collect the spam.
 

mobex

Member
Apr 26, 2003
10
0
151
Re: Re: Re: SpamAssassin and Forwarders

Originally posted by goodmove
In your case it is the mailbox where you are redirecting the spam to that is getting filtered by SA, not the forwarder.

You may find the outcome different if you try an external mailbox to collect the spam.
No, the mail is filtered by SA first (to both forwarders and physical accounts), which tags the email as spam. If it is tagged as spam by SA, the block forwards it to the spam collection account -- it never reaches the intended recipient regardless if it's a forwarder or a physical account.

Spam directed to forwarding-only accounts are tagged and not forwarded to the intended recipient. They are diverted to the spam collection account. This is really good because there's a forwarder that is starting to get a lot of spam now. SA catches almost all of it.
 

goodmove

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2003
643
4
168
Originally posted by mobex
No, the mail is filtered by SA first (to both forwarders and physical accounts), which tags the email as spam. If it is tagged as spam by SA, the block forwards it to the spam collection account -- it never reaches the intended recipient regardless if it's a forwarder or a physical account.

Spam directed to forwarding-only accounts are tagged and not forwarded to the intended recipient. They are diverted to the spam collection account. This is really good because there's a forwarder that is starting to get a lot of spam now. SA catches almost all of it.
You are slightly missing the point.

Have you tried to set up the filter to redirect spam to an "external" mailbox instead of an internal one, and see if the emails for the forwarders (not the mailboxes) are still getting filtered?
 
Last edited:

Raincross

Registered
Oct 30, 2003
4
0
151
My experience is that SA DOES NOT filter forwarded addresses if the address is not created within the domain housing SA. The e-mail program forwards email and then the recipient program may have or not have a SA filter. Also, SA filters as the LAST filter. According to a WSJ article, SA is the least effective (68%) filter compared to others (up to 90%).:mad:
 

goodmove

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2003
643
4
168
Originally posted by Raincross
My experience is that SA DOES NOT filter forwarded addresses if the address is not created within the domain housing SA. The e-mail program forwards email and then the recipient program may have or not have a SA filter. Also, SA filters as the LAST filter.
That's correct!

> According to a WSJ article, SA is the least effective (68%) filter compared to others (up to 90%).

That is certainly not the case in my experience. Then again, I set the lower limit at 3.2 points, so maybe that's why I have a 99% success rate...

WSJ may be biased towards commercial filtering products. This site, for instance, has different ideas:

http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/964/