Would be nice if we could scan headers |
Post Reply
|
| Author | |
WebGuyz
Senior Member
Joined: 09 May 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 348 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Topic: Would be nice if we could scan headersPosted: 21 January 2007 at 5:41pm |
|
It would be great if there was an option in SpamFilter that would allow us to turn on scanning of ANY headers (like ScanReceivedHeaders now in the .ini) and then allow us to specify a certain header to filter on. Call it Header Filter and then you specify a file which has a entry per line and you can specify which header you are checking for and what the matched value of the header would be. If it matches its rejected. X-MYOWN: reject Of course this would take more CPU but hey, Quad Core CPU;s are available now. (Got one on order and can't wait to try it with SF ;-). This would be helpful to those use more than just SF alone to combat the spammers. Trying to get the spam that SF missed back into it so the SF Bayes can get a crack at it. Thanks!
|
|
|
http://www.webguyz.net
|
|
![]() |
|
caratking
Groupie
Joined: 13 March 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 79 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 January 2007 at 8:51pm |
|
Will SF actually take advantage of dual / quad core CPU's? A lot of applications get little or no benefit from them yet.
|
|
![]() |
|
LogSat
Admin Group
Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4106 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 January 2007 at 11:11pm |
|
SF should use whatever CPU the OS is making available. We're not picky about what kind of CPUs they are
|
|
![]() |
|
WebGuyz
Senior Member
Joined: 09 May 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 348 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 January 2007 at 1:04am |
|
I'm thinking the 8 meg onboard cache should speed things up as well as the 1066 fsb speed. Any idea if being able to scan individual headers is even feasable in SF(E)? Anyone else like to see this as well or is it just me. |
|
|
http://www.webguyz.net
|
|
![]() |
|
ImInAfrica
Groupie
Joined: 27 June 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 60 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 January 2007 at 3:49pm |
|
WebGuyz, Since youre asking, |
|
![]() |
|
mbrusl
Groupie
Joined: 05 December 2005 Location: Thunder Bay Ont Status: Offline Points: 61 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 January 2007 at 9:28pm |
|
I second the motion. This could also mean that if we are able to scan the headers, we would be able to scan for all the IPs that the email was routed from. Well, atleast we could only hope it came from a legit system. Reason, simple, then there would be a way to determine who and where all the spam is coming from. Whether its from a legit ISP or a botnet (infected home user). just food for thought here.
Michael
|
|
![]() |
|
LogSat
Admin Group
Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4106 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 January 2007 at 9:39pm |
|
While we're looking into this request, please note that you can already scan thru the "Received:" headers by changing the following SpamFilter.ini setting:
;if ScanReceivedHeaders is set to 1 SpamFilter will add the "Received:" headers to the text examined for keywords and statistical Bayesian searches. ScanReceivedHeaders=1 |
|
![]() |
|
WebGuyz
Senior Member
Joined: 09 May 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 348 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 February 2007 at 5:55pm |
|
Going from a single pentium 4 3.0 Ghz to dual 1.66Ghz Quad Core with a 1066 fsb makes SFI run like a scalded cat!! Very cool to see the task manager performance screen with 8 windows |
|
|
http://www.webguyz.net
|
|
![]() |
|
Post Reply
|
|
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.398 seconds.


Topic Options
Post Options
Thanks(0)



caratking wrote:
. 