Prev: Postfix sender reputation support in snapshot 20100117
Next: suppress NDRs from spoofed sender
From: Stan Hoeppner on 19 Jan 2010 20:35
Steve put forth on 1/19/2010 7:10 PM:

> I have another opinion on that. The Anti-Spam solution I use has normally 0.01 seconds (or less but could be more as well) per message when classifying a mail for Ham/Spam. Every processing of a message allows me to increase the accuracy of the solution. If the engine makes errors then I correct them and the engine learns. Whitelisting all friends, family members, etc from the beginning is taking away from me the possibility to get better results in the future. I want my Anti-Spam engine to learn. I want it to work and get better. I want it to learn who is my friend and who not. I want it to whitelist my friends/family members only if they don't send me Spam. If the engine thinks they send me Spam then I want the engine to adapt and learn. If the solution is constantly making errors in that regard then this would not tighten my confidence in the solution and I personally would soon look for another solution. That's how I think about it. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying
tha
> t my viewpoint is the only valid viewpoint and that yours is absolutely wrong and and and. I just tried to bring closer to you how I see that topic and how I handle it. Without judging which approach is the better one. I know that any approach is right and in the same time wrong. There is none universal valid approach.

Many people don't use content filters in their anti-spam arsenals. For these
folks (including myself) whitelisting is a valuable tool, and if done correctly
won't introduce any additional exposure to spam via spoofed sender addresses.

If you're gasping and wondering how someone can fight spam without a content
filter such as SA, I'd say you haven't been in the game long enough, or haven't
faced 4th and goal enough times. ;)

I'll take some heat for this comment, but for the most part it's true. SA is a
"lazy man's" A/S tool. Most people who use it expect it to just "work
automatically". Some know that is must be well trained and tweaked to work very
well. Others have thrown it away and gone to better methods, but they take
considerably more OP time to setup and keep working well.

I fall into another category. I've never used SA and started out from day one
using the "other methods", including heavy use of Postfix's inbuilt anti-UCE
features. And yes, I've burned a lot of time maintaining it. But it works very
very well.

--
Stan

From: "Steve" on 19 Jan 2010 20:49
> Many people don't use content filters in their anti-spam arsenals. For
> these
> folks (including myself) whitelisting is a valuable tool, and if done
> correctly
> won't introduce any additional exposure to spam via spoofed sender
> addresses.
>
I know that.


> If you're gasping and wondering how someone can fight spam without a
> content
> filter such as SA, I'd say you haven't been in the game long enough,
>
You terribly underestimate me. I know well how to fight Spam without a content filter. Heck. I could even turn of my content filter and most users would not see a difference. If I only look at the legitimate user mailboxes (aka: no honey pots) then my current Spam inbound is less then 1%. Statistically looked at it those <1% are nothing.


> or
> haven't
> faced 4th and goal enough times. ;)
>
I don't understand that sentence/expression.


> I'll take some heat for this comment, but for the most part it's true. SA
> is a
> "lazy man's" A/S tool.
>
I am absolutely with you in that regard.


> Most people who use it expect it to just "work
> automatically". Some know that is must be well trained and tweaked to
> work very
> well. Others have thrown it away and gone to better methods, but they
> take
> considerably more OP time to setup and keep working well.
>
> I fall into another category.
>
Me too.


> I've never used SA and started out from day
> one
> using the "other methods", including heavy use of Postfix's inbuilt
> anti-UCE
> features. And yes, I've burned a lot of time maintaining it. But it
> works very
> very well.
>
I only burned at the beginning a lot of time. But now it's like a perpetuum mobile. It just works. A bunch of the rings I build around the users mail box require some maintenance but mostly they are minimal (aka: ensuring that the used RBL/RHBL/DNSWL/etc are all still alive, that none of the solutions just got wild and does crazy/unexpected things, that an update of Postfix does not break anything that I have implemented, etc...)



> --
> Stan
>
Steve
--
Preisknaller: GMX DSL Flatrate f�r nur 16,99 Euro/mtl.!
http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Postfix sender reputation support in snapshot 20100117
Next: suppress NDRs from spoofed sender