All I was suggesting is an option for something useful, not an entire rewrite of the system to accomodate my needs.
I personally have a philosophical problem with storing 2 weeks worth of SPAM on my servers knowing full well that it well eventually get deleted. In fact, I have a philosophical problem storing 1 BYTE of SPAM on my servers. We do not use TMDA as a "first line of defence". We are using spamassassin and RBL as well but too much mail is getting through these first line systems. My intentions were to set default my installation with tmda "on" for everyone and give them the option of turning it "off". If tmda is not the right option for my deployment, can someone suggest another challenge/response system. I haven't found anything that is as good as tmda for my needs. The automatic whitelist management capabilities are fantastic. Bill > > >> I am setting this up server wide and giving our users the option to >> turn the service either "on or off". They will not have access to >> specific options. We are currently receiving about 3 GB a day of >> mail of which 99.9% is SPAM. By holding mail on the server for 14 >> days, it amounts to storing of over 40GB of SPAM at any given time. > >You are assuming that every user will opt to turn TMDA "on", which >won't be the case. Also, Cory's point is a good one. TMDA should >kick in only after the most obvious spam is shut down at the SMTP >level. > >> Even with PENDING_LIFETIME set to a more reasonable 3 days, I have >> no desire to hold 9-10 GB of SPAM on my server. > >Even if it means your users might lose mail because of it? See my >previous message, and make sure you've thought through the >ramifications of doing this. > >I picked up an 80GB disk at Sam's Club last week for like $100USD. I >would think a small expenditure like this would be worth the >additional benefits for your customers. > >> I agree that this probably wouldn't be useful for the single user >> installing TMDA on their account, but for large system wide >> deployments I think it is crucial. > >In practice, this isn't the case, which is why this hasn't been >requested before. And yes, there other large systems using TMDA. > >> Finally, of course I would love a patch (or option) for this. > >FWIW, this patch won't be something I'll be adding to the >distribution. First, there isn't enough general interest for it, and >second I disagree with it philosophically. > >You'd be better off using a challenge/response system that operates at >the SMTP level. It's a waste to have something like TMDA accept and >process the message if you're not even going to store it. _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
