Thu Aug 29 15:32:57 UTC 2002
I've been using DCC off and on with SpamAssassin for a project and ran up against the requirement to quarantine all mail that would otherwise be blocked by both tools. I've used a combination of recipient re-writing and procmail to log and quarantine the messages on a reiserfs file system. The method of centrally storing one copy of binary attachments described in the documentation led me to an idea I'd like to broach. If, upon classifying a message as "bulk", DCC (through dccm) were to mark the headers with the acutal hash that exceeded the threshold (not sure that's feasible), the hash itself could be used as the filename in quarantine. This would have the advantage of continually overwriting a single copy of the bulk message, rather than quarantining thousands of near-identical copies. Why would I go to these lenghts? If a message were seen as bulk, yet was business critical, a single copy of it would exist in the quarantine and could be searched for and retrieved using data in the procmaillog file. This occurs to me as one way to provide most of the benefit of DCC to my network infrastructure with the assurance that no data would be lost. Messages that did not exceed any threshold would be stored individually. Thoughts, anyone?
More information about the DCC