Attachment block, bug or feature? |
Post Reply ![]() |
Author | |
yapadu ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 12 May 2005 Status: Offline Points: 297 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted: 31 July 2009 at 8:34am |
I noticed something today about attachments.
Spam Filter has the option to blacklist attachments, you could put in something like this: *.zip *.exe *.bat Now, you might think you have protected your users from any attachments with these three attachment types right? Well, not so fast. The attachment blacklist only applies if the message size is under the value set in MaxMsgSizeForSpamFiltering. If you have a block on .doc, and someone send a .doc file that is 5 megs in size you will end up getting something like this: X-SF-WhiteListedReason: Whitelisted - Email size exceeded MaxMsgSizeForSpamFiltering Is this by design or a bug? |
|
![]() |
|
LogSat ![]() Admin Group ![]() ![]() Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4104 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
That is by design.
We had a thread on the forum that was updated to always display the order in which filters are applied (www.logsat.com/SpamFilter/Forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=5171&PID=11418#11418). As this was hard to find we always wanted to move it to a separate posting but never got around it... until now. We've created a new "sticky" thread on the forum that will always contain the latest list showing the order in which filters are applied. From there we can see that the "Exceeded MaxMsgSizeForSpamFiltering" whitelist precedes the "Attachment Filter", and thus emails over that minimum size will be whitelisted bypassing the attachment filter. The list can now be found at:
|
|
![]() |
|
yapadu ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 12 May 2005 Status: Offline Points: 297 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Thanks for the update regarding the filter list, a bit unfortunate since the ability to block attachments is not really 'real'.
I would like to suggest another item to be made sticky (or perhaps part of the same sticky thread). The item that I think is of interest to people is the current minimum network reliability value being used for SFDB and SFDC. I think the default value for SpamFilter is 3, but I read in the past that the minimum value has changed over time and it is now much higher. Someone trying to make adjustments to the sensitivity of the network reliability, might increase it to 6 or 9 etc. but it would actually not be doing anything because they are not above the minimum value used by the SFDB/SFDC. |
|
![]() |
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 0.184 seconds.