Karl,
What would be best would be to set up a system for the review and
reprocessing of false positives. It would likely also help to add some
external tests such as Sniffer so as to improve your spam blocking and
rely less on single tests that could be contributing to your false
positive issue. Approaching this from the perspective of bouncing
E-mail as a solution is to miss the essence of the real problem and
create another one in it's place. The fact that you both hold and
bounce E-mail suggests that this is simply an issue with the
practicality of reviewing what would otherwise get blocked. Your
perspective of this being the lesser of two evils is likely the
result of not yet being blacklisted since their is no double that the
same City Manager would yell even louder if he couldn't send E-mail to
his friends and constituents than he would when missing E-mails from
whack-job citizens.
If it is not within your abilities to procure and/or design new filters
and add such review functionality, you might consider outsourcing to a
third-party than can resolve these problems, or you might want to
consider subject tagging in the place of holding or bouncing E-mail,
and then have the E-mail clients filter messages with the tagged
subjects into Junk folders that they can choose to either review or
ignore.
Matt
IS - Systems Eng. (Karl Drugge) wrote:
Believe me,
I’d love to find a way
to do it, but when I HAVE to receive emails from hideously
mis-configured
servers, whack-job citizens, and other municipalities with less then
stellar
I.T. staff… from any where at any time, not bouncing becomes the worse
of
two evils.
As an
example, if I DELETE an email from a
citizen because it meets my delete criteria ( let’s say a nut-job,
retired, self declared IT samurai with a shareware SMTP server, on a
dial up
account to a local home based ISP run by his best friend ) I can ( and
have )
been questioned by the City Manager on exactly WHY he didn’t get this
email, because this nut-job shows up to a city council meeting and has
a
foaming at the mouth fit in public. Technical explanations don’t cut it
in the political arena. I have to, at the very least, send something
back to
notify the originator that the email was bounced, unless it’s so
horribly
mal-formed, or chock full of key words, that it I can absolutely
guarantee it’s
spam.
But, if
someone wants to take a crack at
it, I’ll be more than happy to post my config files.
-----Original
Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Tuesday, January
17, 2006 4:28
PM
To:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re:
[Declude.JunkMail]
Whitelisting email address
Karl,
Getting blacklisted for bouncing spam back to forged addresses would
probably
be a lot worse than missing a stray message that shouldn't have been
blocked. This certainly can happen, especially if you get a lot of
zombie
generated spam.
It is also of course a big pain dealing with servers that bounce this
stuff
back to forged addresses. Today I'm under heavy attack from multiple
sources of backscatter. Backscatter costs others time, money and
frustration. It's not fair if it is avoidable. Please reconsider
your choices. Maybe we can help you figure out a better way to deal
with
this.
Matt
IS - Systems Eng. (Karl Drugge) wrote:
I hold at
20, bounce at
40, and delete at 60.
I realize
bouncing is
bad, but we’re government, so I have to be careful about outright
deleting email without notifying someone, somewhere.
Karl Drugge
-----Original
Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Brian
Sent: Tuesday, January
17, 2006
3:38 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re:
[Declude.JunkMail]
Whitelisting email address
What are you using
for a hold weight and delete weight?
----- Original
Message -----
Sent: Tuesday,
January 17, 2006 3:17 PM
Subject: RE:
[Declude.JunkMail] Whitelisting email address
I can
confirm that.
If a
single email address is white listed, then all of them get white listed.
The
solution was a line like this : BYPASSWHITELIST
bypasswhitelist 45
6
0 0
If an
email was over weight 45, AND it also had 6 or more recipients, than it
bypassed the white-listing and checked it normally.
I never
tried to do it with individual config files.. But that might work, if
it didn't
affect all the recipients.
-----Original
Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Brian
Sent: Tuesday, January
17, 2006
2:16 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re:
[Declude.JunkMail]
Whitelisting email address
I recall that
happening with IMail as well. That is why I was wondering if I did
something wrong before.
----- Original
Message -----
Sent: Tuesday,
January 17, 2006 1:12 PM
Subject: Re:
[Declude.JunkMail] Whitelisting email address
We have found that if one
of the addresses is whitelisted,
then every recipient's address gets whitelisted. This may be unique to
SmarterMail/Declude. I don't remember having the problem with IMail,
but we
haven't used it in over a year.
Shayne
Yes,
this can be done
with the Pro version. You can have per-user configurations. You can't
not have
Declude scan the mail, but you can set this individual's configuration
to
ignore all test results and deliver the mail. As far as I know, this
shouldn't
have any affect on other recipients of the email.
On
1/17/06, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have
a customer who
wants to receive all emails without having declude
check them for spam.
My question, is can this be done?
And then can it be done so that if a message comes in and it is a
message
that contains their email address and several other email address on our
domain, that it can only be sent to their address prior to the spam
checks?
I hope this makes sense.
Thanks in advance,
Brian T.
---
PLEASE
NOTE : Florida has
a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from
City
officials regarding City business are public records available to the
public
and media upon request. Your E-mail communications may be subject to
public
disclosure.
PLEASE
NOTE : Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written
communications
to or from City officials regarding City business are public records
available
to the public and media upon request. Your E-mail communications may be
subject
to public disclosure.
PLEASE
NOTE : Florida has
a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from
City
officials regarding City business are public records available to the
public
and media upon request. Your E-mail communications may be subject to
public
disclosure.
PLEASE
NOTE : Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written
communications
to or from City officials regarding City business are public records
available
to the public and media upon request. Your E-mail communications may be
subject
to public disclosure.
PLEASE
NOTE : Florida has
a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from
City
officials regarding City business are public records available to the
public
and media upon request. Your E-mail communications may be subject to
public
disclosure.
PLEASE NOTE :
Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written
communications to or from City officials regarding City business are
public records available to the public and media upon request. Your
E-mail communications may be subject to public disclosure.
|
