I treid grey listng and don't use it because too many servers were not
re-sending the e-mail back asap. Alot did and there was no problem.
But some took up to a day to retry the message.
I remeber reading about DPSAM. Also going to look at amavisd-new and assp.
I like the idea of calling it a
Zitat von Henrik K h...@hege.li:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:06:44PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I will say generically that for an OP who has the time, avoiding content
filters and using SMTP time blocking methods is probably more
effective in the
long run and makes more efficient use of
On 16 juil. 2010, at 09:27, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
In Germany many companies have given up on content filtering because it is
not allowed to drop mail after accepting, if there is a chance that private
mail *could* be involved. So with content filter your only choice would be to
tag
Am 16.07.2010 09:27, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Henrik K h...@hege.li:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:06:44PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I will say generically that for an OP who has the time, avoiding content
filters and using SMTP time blocking methods is probably more
effective
Zitat von Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org:
Am 16.07.2010 09:27, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Henrik K h...@hege.li:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:06:44PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I will say generically that for an OP who has the time, avoiding content
filters and using
Am 16.07.2010 10:15, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org:
Am 16.07.2010 09:27, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Henrik K h...@hege.li:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:06:44PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I will say generically that for an OP who
Zitat von Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org:
Am 16.07.2010 10:15, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org:
Am 16.07.2010 09:27, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Henrik K h...@hege.li:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:06:44PM -0500, Stan
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:03:27 +0200
Von: Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
Am 16.07.2010 10:15, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Robert Schetterer rob
Am 16.07.2010 13:10, schrieb Steve:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:03:27 +0200
Von: Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
Am 16.07.2010 10:15, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat
Steve wrote:
[big snip]
So you have made your point. You prefer (or are required) to have user in
control.
Yes. The big problem is that no solution out there is 100% accurate for all
users. So the only way to make the user happy is to delegate the control to
him.
Can't speek for all
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 02:55:17PM +0200, Mikael Bak wrote:
Steve wrote:
[big snip]
So you have made your point. You prefer (or are required) to have user in
control.
Yes. The big problem is that no solution out there is 100% accurate for all
users. So the only way to make the user
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:55:17 +0200
Von: Mikael Bak mik...@t-online.hu
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
Steve wrote:
[big snip]
So you have made your point. You prefer (or are required) to have user
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:09:54 -0500
Von: Kenneth Marshall k...@rice.edu
An: Mikael Bak mik...@t-online.hu
CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 02:55:17PM +0200, Mikael Bak wrote:
Steve
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:06:11PM +0200, Steve wrote:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:09:54 -0500
Von: Kenneth Marshall k...@rice.edu
An: Mikael Bak mik...@t-online.hu
CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
On Fri
Steve:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:44:23 -0400
Von: Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
Steve, I request that you end this thread.
Wietse
As most of you guys know. I use mailscanner. I would like
recomendations of what else to use. I prefer a all in one package like
what mailscanner does. It also utilizes clamav and spamassion. The
problem is most of the information I find on the net is outdated or
for projects that stops.
Use greylisting, eg postgrey and set it up to work before amavisd-new
or mailscanner.
2010/7/15 Josh Cason joc...@mychoice.cc
As most of you guys know. I use mailscanner. I would like recomendations of
what else to use. I prefer a all in one package like what mailscanner does.
It also
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:37:48 +0200
Von: Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
* Josh Cason joc...@mychoice.cc:
As most of you guys know. I use mailscanner. I would
Or sqlgrey, a fork of postgrey.
http://sqlgrey.sourceforge.net/
On Jul 15, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Kai Krakow wrote:
Use greylisting, eg postgrey and set it up to work before amavisd-new
or mailscanner.
2010/7/15 Josh Cason joc...@mychoice.cc
As most of you guys know. I use mailscanner. I would
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:03:17 -0700
Von: Bradley Giesbrecht bradley.giesbre...@gmail.com
An: postfix-users postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
Or sqlgrey, a fork of postgrey.
http://sqlgrey.sourceforge.net
On 07/15/2010 12:29 PM, Steve wrote:
Or GROSS (the only greylisting application that I know working with a bloom
filter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_filter)).
http://code.google.com/p/gross/
Thanks for the link, what I see there is very interesting - I'll check
this out...
Joe
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:02:52PM +0200, Steve wrote:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:37:48 +0200
Von: Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
* Josh Cason joc
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:54:22 +0300
Von: Henrik K h...@hege.li
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:02:52PM +0200, Steve wrote:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Thu, 15
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:16:43PM +0200, Steve wrote:
If you looking for something that is beyond just being better then I
recommend CRM114 or DSPAM or OSBF-Lua. If you insist in having the AV
included in the Anti-Spam tool then use something like DSPAM.
I'd consider those as
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 02:09:43 +0300
Von: Henrik K h...@hege.li
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:16:43PM +0200, Steve wrote:
If you looking for something that is beyond just
Steve put forth on 7/15/2010 4:16 PM:
* if you feed wrong data to the Anti-Spam filter then the filter will make
errors.
Content (header/body) filters have always been error prone and always will be.
The key to success is if the error rate is acceptable. For users to train
them, they have
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:06:44PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I will say generically that for an OP who has the time, avoiding content
filters and using SMTP time blocking methods is probably more effective in the
long run and makes more efficient use of network and server resources.
You
27 matches
Mail list logo