From: "Palvelin Postmaster" Received: from [83.150.109.27] (HELO palvelin.fi) by mail.tffenterprises.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.7) with ESMTPS id 19440127 for cgpsa-discuss@mail.tffenterprises.com; Tue, 29 May 2018 00:09:53 -0700 Received-SPF: pass receiver=mail.tffenterprises.com; client-ip=83.150.109.27; envelope-from=postmaster@palvelin.fi X-ClamAV-Checked: YES DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=palvelin.fi; h=from :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject :date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; s=posti; bh=EKJvKVFc 6jhYR3Qp/dAaepWHwnYoTXE+gvOHRLOnzRY=; b=A5UkTWkhpZhxRDV6Tw81PtJ2 NIhG3HmDAOXLRXXhBvkPcMZlcBRQQRJJiZRSk2+NduT4/gU8fElBzO2ETStgCHxs H/cJ7aR3kK29N2A72qBEVQVN1JPbpIiS0/QmQm4AYPlYjKaSn4IbXZrxUeZXScdN hEL/ZE0YDxIfLAVtn6c= Received: from [188.238.10.162] (account postmaster@palvelin.fi HELO hans.vallden.com) by palvelin.fi (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.2.4) with ESMTPSA id 10161274 for cgpsa-discuss@mail.tffenterprises.com; Tue, 29 May 2018 10:09:39 +0300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\)) Subject: Re: [CGPSA] Delivering spam to Junk mailbox of each recipient Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 10:09:38 +0300 References: To: CGPSA Discussion List In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18) > On 29 May 2018, at 9:37, Patrick Sneyers = wrote: >=20 >> Op 29 mei 2018, om 08:17 heeft Palvelin Postmaster = het volgende geschreven: >>=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >> I have a system-wide rule which delivers all recognized spam = addressed to all domains and recipients to one centralized spam folder = (of an account created exclusively for this purpose) for temporary = storage and teaching SpamAssassin=E2=80=99s bayes filter. >>=20 >> I=E2=80=99m considering changing my strategy to having a per-user = spam folder instead. I=E2=80=99m thinking this could, at the very least, = empower the users to actually receive these messages and manage possible = false positives. >>=20 >> Does anyone have any experience or insights about the strengths and = weaknesses of alternate handling strategies? >>=20 >> What would be the best way to implement this? Do I just need to make = a =E2=80=99Store In=E2=80=99 domain-wide rule for each domain instead of = the single system-wide rule I have now? >>=20 >=20 > You can use this option in cgpsa.conf (line 552 in my file), and keep = using the server wide rule. Ahh=E2=80=A6I had forgotten about that. Thanks for the reminder! :) So, here=E2=80=99s my current server-wide processing rule. Do I just = need to delete the =E2=80=99Store In=E2=80=99 action and tweak the = cgpsa.conf dma settings? Subject is *SPAM-PALVELIN* Header Field is X-Spam-Flag: YES*=20 Add Header X-Spam-Global: YES Write To Log Spam (GLOBAL) Detected Store In ~spam/Junk-SpamAssassin Discard > Of course, learning spam/ham becomes a bit more complicated then. Do you mean in a technical or practical sense? I currently have a script = which learns spam daily from all folders which follow specified naming = conventions (Junk*, Spam*, etc.). I don=E2=80=99t see a need to make any = changes to it. > # A flag that determines whether messages tagged as spam will be filed > # automatically using direct mailbox addressing. This eliminates the = need > # for users to add rules to their accounts to handle spam filtering, = but > # only works on systems where direct mailbox addressing is enabled. Where does one enable DMA in CGP? -- Palvelin.fi Hostmaster postmaster@palvelin.fi