Re: TDMA (was Re: Spam filtering software)
* Chris Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-28 10:15:48 +0100]: On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:05:57AM -0500, John Buttery wrote: Anyway, just out of curiosity, how come you guys aren't using TMDA? Just haven't found it yet, or...? Probably because it's useless for quite a number of people. Useless is a pretty strong word...it's merely a question of whether the benefit of the tool justifies the setup time. Much of my incoming mail is in response to enquiries I send out to trade suppliers and small businesses. If I implemented TMDA they would have to jump through hoops to get their response to me, it's difficult enough getting a response from some people anyway so I suspect that TMDA would reduce the reply rate to negligable proportions. The alternative of modifying the TDMA 'whitelist' when I send the enquiry out is similarly flawed (I have to jump through hoops) and anyway isn't guaranteed to work as they may not respond from an address I know about. Well, I'm not going to get too far into advocacy here, given that this is a MUA list and not a anti-spam software list, but I do need to point out that you must have read a very old version of TMDA's feature list, because it is much more than a simple whitelist (which you could do with a 3-4 line procmail recipe anyway). The situation you're talking about sounds like a good candidate for TMDA's date-keyed addresses. Only a very small proportion of my (wanted) incoming mail is from people/addresses that are known to me, a 'whitelist' would catch a tiny proportion of my mail. That depends very heavily on the robustness of the whitelist. Maybe TMDA isn't right for you...ok...but don't insinuate that it's just a pattern check against a file with a list of regexps in it. :) -- John Buttery Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while. (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg30491/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: TDMA (was Re: Spam filtering software)
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:05:57AM -0500, John Buttery wrote: blacklisting adds 100 to the score. All you really have to do is set your procmail rules so that mails with a score over 90 are sent to /dev/null, and mails with less are sent to your spam folder. Then you get pretty much the best of both worlds. OK, this should have been its own thread a long time ago. :) Anyway, just out of curiosity, how come you guys aren't using TMDA? Just haven't found it yet, or...? Probably because it's useless for quite a number of people. Much of my incoming mail is in response to enquiries I send out to trade suppliers and small businesses. If I implemented TMDA they would have to jump through hoops to get their response to me, it's difficult enough getting a response from some people anyway so I suspect that TMDA would reduce the reply rate to negligable proportions. The alternative of modifying the TDMA 'whitelist' when I send the enquiry out is similarly flawed (I have to jump through hoops) and anyway isn't guaranteed to work as they may not respond from an address I know about. Only a very small proportion of my (wanted) incoming mail is from people/addresses that are known to me, a 'whitelist' would catch a tiny proportion of my mail. -- Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: TDMA (was Re: Spam filtering software)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:15:48 +0100 From: Chris Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TDMA (was Re: Spam filtering software) On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:05:57AM -0500, John Buttery wrote: Anyway, just out of curiosity, how come you guys aren't using TMDA? Just haven't found it yet, or...? Probably because it's useless for quite a number of people. Much of my incoming mail is in response to enquiries I send out to trade suppliers and small businesses. If I implemented TMDA they would have to jump through hoops to get their response to me, it's difficult enough getting a response from some people anyway so I suspect that TMDA would reduce the reply rate to negligable proportions. The alternative of modifying the TDMA 'whitelist' when I send the enquiry out is similarly flawed (I have to jump through hoops) and anyway isn't guaranteed to work as they may not respond from an address I know about. I think you should re-read the tmda docs, especially the client configuration. -- FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE 12:29PM up 7 days, 18:22, 17 users, load averages: 0.04, 0.11, 0.10
Re: TDMA (was Re: Spam filtering software)
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:34:58PM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:15:48 +0100 From: Chris Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TDMA (was Re: Spam filtering software) On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:05:57AM -0500, John Buttery wrote: Anyway, just out of curiosity, how come you guys aren't using TMDA? Just haven't found it yet, or...? Probably because it's useless for quite a number of people. Much of my incoming mail is in response to enquiries I send out to trade suppliers and small businesses. If I implemented TMDA they would have to jump through hoops to get their response to me, it's difficult enough getting a response from some people anyway so I suspect that TMDA would reduce the reply rate to negligable proportions. The alternative of modifying the TDMA 'whitelist' when I send the enquiry out is similarly flawed (I have to jump through hoops) and anyway isn't guaranteed to work as they may not respond from an address I know about. I think you should re-read the tmda docs, especially the client configuration. Yes? This assumes that I own a domain and have an unlimited number of E-Mail addresses available to me, again not the normal situation. -- Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: TDMA (was Re: Spam filtering software)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:46:59 +0100 From: Chris Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TDMA (was Re: Spam filtering software) On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:34:58PM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:15:48 +0100 From: Chris Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TDMA (was Re: Spam filtering software) On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:05:57AM -0500, John Buttery wrote: Anyway, just out of curiosity, how come you guys aren't using TMDA? Just haven't found it yet, or...? Probably because it's useless for quite a number of people. Much of my incoming mail is in response to enquiries I send out to trade suppliers and small businesses. If I implemented TMDA they would have to jump through hoops to get their response to me, it's difficult enough getting a response from some people anyway so I suspect that TMDA would reduce the reply rate to negligable proportions. The alternative of modifying the TDMA 'whitelist' when I send the enquiry out is similarly flawed (I have to jump through hoops) and anyway isn't guaranteed to work as they may not respond from an address I know about. I think you should re-read the tmda docs, especially the client configuration. Yes? This assumes that I own a domain and have an unlimited number of E-Mail addresses available to me, again not the normal situation. no. tmda can work on a nullclient. it only requires that 1) your pop3 server stores envelope information in headers 2) the smtp server of your provider accepts addresses with extensions -- FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE 1:48PM up 7 days, 19:41, 19 users, load averages: 0.04, 0.06, 0.01
Re: TDMA (was Re: Spam filtering software)
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 01:58:32PM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote: I think you should re-read the tmda docs, especially the client configuration. Yes? This assumes that I own a domain and have an unlimited number of E-Mail addresses available to me, again not the normal situation. no. tmda can work on a nullclient. it only requires that 1) your pop3 server stores envelope information in headers 2) the smtp server of your provider accepts addresses with extensions I can't see this bit about accepting addresses with extensions. My adddress here is [EMAIL PROTECTED] and that's it, I don't *think* any alternatives are possible which will reach me here. The mail is not received via a POP3 server at all so 1) isn't applicable. I can see that TMDA could be very effective on a home linux machine but that isn't my situation (neither is it for quite a few other people). -- Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: TDMA (was Re: Spam filtering software)
* Chris Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-28 08:38]: On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 01:58:32PM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote: 2) the smtp server of your provider accepts addresses with extensions I can't see this bit about accepting addresses with extensions. My adddress here is [EMAIL PROTECTED] and that's it, I don't *think* any alternatives are possible which will reach me here. I think + addresses are the extension referred to above; have you tried them? I.e., [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- most modern SMTP servers will Do The Right Thing, and deliver it to the mailbox for user chris. Sendmail does it, so does postfix, qmail does it but uses a - instead of a + by default. I'm sure others do as well. Oh yeah, almost forgot -- only the MTA that invokes the MDA needs to support it. (darren) -- Whatever is done for love is beyond good and evil. -- Friedrich Neitzsche
