RW wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:04:23 -0700 (PDT), Praveen wrote: > > >> Hi, >> From the man page it appears that spamd relies on >> static information about spam originators. >> Why not a more dynamic scheme ?. >> >> Why not run the content of the mail through a spam >> detector (like dspam), find the spam score and make >> decisions based on that. I know that spam detection >> is no where near perfect but it can be used for >> assigning a 'badness score' to a site(originator of >> email). So a site keeps getting this score and the >> average (per msg) exceeds a we black list the site for >> fixed duration. Similarly for white listing. >> >> 'Badness score' and also be assigned for other things, >> like trying to send to non-existant user (a typical >> spammer probe), absence of mx entry etc. >> >> >> A milter(sendmail/postfix) can be implemented for >> this. >> Thus decisions will be more dynamic and 'configuration >> free'. >> >> Does this sound reasonable ? >> >> > > No. > > That would make spamd into bloatware and much less efficient. > > People who want milters, content-inspection, RBL lookups and whatever > can run them in conjunction with their MTA. > > spamd does all I want it to do with no measureable load on my system. I > do NO content inspection and there have been only 3 spams total which > got to any user in this domain since 1/1/7. > > Content inspection practitioners are always playing catchup and > fiddling with ham/spam training for their toys and then along comes the > next trick of the spammers = back to square one. > >
i second this. started working at my current job and there was a ton of spam coming through until i setup spamd. some spam outfits, e.g. OptInBig.com, took a bit of energy and analysis to block (thrown into blacklists) but now that it's done, we get very little spam. the amount of energy i have to expend on a regular basis to keep spamd working effectively is approximately 0. > Thanks to beck@ and company I don't have to play that silly game. > > here here! carefully reading the RFCs can be a beautiful thing indeed. cheers, jake > R\/\/. > > In the beginning was The Word > and The Word was Content-type: text/plain > The Word of Rod.
