Mail Filtering
by Michael Stevens
|
Pages: 1, 2
Testing ... 1 ... 2 ... 3 ...
I decided to do an extended comparison of both PerlMx and
Mail::Audit. As one of the most common applications of mail filtering
tools is for spam filtering, I set up recent versions of both the tools
on my personal e-mail, by various nefarious means, ran them for
a week, and compared the results on two main criteria:
- False positives (legitimate email recognized as spam)
- False negatives (spam not recognized as spam)
Mail::Audit doesn't come with much spam filtering technology by
default, so I decided to add SpamAssassin (http://www.spamassassin.org/)
to the testing, as it can be used as a Mail::Audit extension.
I used procmail to copy all my incoming e-mail to two pop3 mailboxes
setup for the purposes of testing - one would contain mail to be
processed by Mail::Audit, the other mail to be processed by
PerlMx's spam filtering. fetchmail was used to pull the mail down
into the domain of Mail::Audit and PerlMx.
Once I had Mail::Audit and SpamAssassin setup, I started feeding mail
into the test box with fetchmail, and was reminded that as the Mail::Audit
approach of setting up a perl program to run from a .forward file
has ... unpleasant effects if you receive more than a few e-mails in
quick succession. As my test mail-server collapsed under the load,
I checked the PerlMx machine, started at roughly the same time, and found that
while it was working through the e-mail more slowly, it hadn't put
any serious load on the machine.
Due to a PerlMx configuration error on my part, of the first 171 messages
processed, 10 were quarantined as spam AND delivered to the inbox of
my test user. PerlMx runs by default in 'training mode' when processing
spam - in this mode, mail is spamchecked as normal, but even if it
is found to be spam and quarantined, it is also delivered to the
user.
I decided to keep track of any mail lost or mislaid during initial setup problems, so I could see what problems could arise from the tools being misconfigured. An important aspect of any software is not only how it behaves when configured right, but how much it punishes you when you get the configuration wrong.
Waking up the next morning, I found I'd bounced several hundred e-mails
back to the account from which I was forwarding all the test e-mails,
someone of which appeared to have gone back and forth, or found their
way into the PerlMx test mailbox. Most of the problems appeared to be
internal errors from within SpamAssassin. My mail-server still
hadn't recovered.
I later found this was because of an compatibility issue with
SpamAssassin / Mail::Audit, and there was a recommended fix in the
SpamAssassin FAQ involving the nomime option to Mail::Audit (but not,
sadly, in the documentation for the Mail::SpamAssassin module
itself).
The SpamAssassin / Mail::Audit script I ended up using in the end was:
#!/usr/local/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use C<Mail::Audit>;
use Mail::SpamAssassin;
# create C<Mail::Audit> object, log to /tmp, disable mime processing
# for SpamAssassin compatibility, and store mail in ~/emergency_mbox
# if processing fails
my $mail = C<Mail::Audit>->new(emergency=>"~/emergency_mbox",
log => '/tmp/audit.log',
loglevel => 4, nomime => 1);
my $spamtest = Mail::SpamAssassin->new;
# check mail with SpamAssassin
my $status = $spamtest->check($mail);
# if it was spam, rewrite to indicate what the problem was, and
# store in the file ass-spam in our home directory
if ($status->is_spam) {
$status->rewrite_mail;
$mail->accept("/home/spam1/ass-spam");
# if if wasn't spam, accept it as normal mail
} else {
$mail->accept;
}
exit 0;
After clearing down all my mail, and losing two days of testing, I started again. It was only the nature of the testing setup that meant the bounce mail went to me and not the original sender. So, at 23:25 on Tuesday, I had another go. This time I knew enough to limit SpamAssassin to receiving messages in batches of five (using fetchmail) - something I could do in testing, but wouldn't be an easy option in most production setups. This meant my test machine could just about cope with delivering mail using SpamAssassin.
At 10 p.m. Sunday, I declared the testing closed, and examined the accuracy or otherwise of each system.
During the testing between Aug. 6 and 11, Mail::Audit
marked 16 pieces of e-mail as spam. Seven of these e-mails proved to be
false positives - mail that I had actually solicited and would have
liked to have received. Six spam emails were accepted into my Inbox.
There were 874 e-mails received in all. Mail::Audit appeared to receive
15 pieces of spam mail in total.
PerlMx marked 14 e-mails as spam. Two of these e-mails proved to be false
positives - mail that was not spam. Impressively, it received 886
e-mails in the same period that Mail::Audit received 874 e-mails. I
was unable to work out the exact cause of this, although the power-cut
in the middle of the testing period will always be a major suspect.
Eleven spam messages were incorrectly allowws through into my Inbox.
PerlMx appeared to receive 23 pieces of spam mail in total.
The sample was small, as all I had was my own personal e-mail to work
with, and I get what I'm told is surprisingly little spam, but it
shows that Mail::Audit / SpamAssassin seems to decide more mail is
spam than PerlMx does, but is also wrong more of the time. PerlMx
marked slightly less e-mail as spam, and let more spam through,
but when it did claim e-mail was spam it was right more of the time.
These tests would benefit significantly from being re-run during a long period of time on a larger mail-server, but I had neither the time nor the mail-server available.
Both tools can be extensively configured in terms of what is considered spam, and are likely to need regular updating to ensure they keep up to date with new tricks of the spammers. Here I only considered the behavior with the default configuration of the latest release at the time I ran my tests.
Feature Comparison
To help you choose, I've summarized the basic characteristics of both systems below. Some of the points are quite subjective and are more my impressions of the tools rather than hard facts - these are marked separately.
| PerlMX | Mail::Audit | |
|---|---|---|
| Scalable | Yes - persistent server | Maybe - depends on config - obvious default configurations scale poorly |
| Ships with wide range of existing filtering functionality | Yes | Limited range, more available from third-parties |
| Target use | System-wide mail filtering for mailservers | Per-use mail filtering as a replacement for programs like procmail |
| Extensible? | Yes | Yes |
| Licensing | Commercial | Open-source |
| Mail Server Compatibility | Sendmail | Almost any mail server |
| Spam filtering | Yes | Third-party extension |
| Virus filtering | Yes | No |
| Easy to setup | Yes | Not so easy, requires custom code |
| Efficient and Scalable | Very scalable - easily separated from the mailserver, and no noticable performance impact during testing | Performance problems during testing in default configuration |
Conclusions
During testing, PerlMx was significantly more reliable, both in terms
of the amount of mail bounced due to configuration problems (none),
and in terms of the load put in the mailserver (minimal) than
Mail::Audit. Although Mail::Audit appears able to be setup for good
performance, the obvious suggested configuration showed extremely poor
scalability during testing. Also, as Mail::Audit requires writing some
filtering code, bugs, mostly in this code, resulted in nontrivial
quantities of mail being bounced during testing due to
code/configuration errors, a problem that simply didn't occur with
PerlMx's more pre-supplied, configuration file based system.
Both PerlMx and Mail::Audit provide good mail filtering solutions
using Perl, but are targeted at entirely different markets. PerlMx
is a systemwide solution providing drop-in functionality on
mailservers, with Perl extensibility as well, whereas Mail::Audit is a
more low-level tool, mostly focused on use by individuals, designed to
let users build their own mail processing tools more easily.

