RW wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
linuxmagic <sa...@linuxmagic.com> wrote:
Slightly old thread, but we should clear any misconceptions.
MagicSpam is NOT anything like SpamAssassin. LinuxMagic has been
developing Anti-Spam solutions for the ISP and Telco markets for
quite some time, focusing on the SMTP transaction layer. This
approach gives a more 'Zero Day' style protection, as it can identify
spam sources prior to accepting the email, reducing backscatter and
overhead.
None of that really distinguishes it from SpamAssassin, people have
been using SA that way for many years.
Incidently the point about backscatter is wrong. The traditional
approach of classifying, and then discarding or filing to a spam folder,
produces zero backscatter from spam. Backscatter is actually caused by
rejecting at the SMTP level - when it's done on the wrong
SMTP transaction.
Say what?!?!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_(e-mail)
"...The recipient mail servers then use the (potentially forged)
sender's address to attempt a good-faith effort to report the problem to
the apparent sender...."
There's 2 separate and independent SMTP transactions here.
The first is the spammer to the recipient mailserver.
The second is the recipient mailserver to the apparent sender.
"rejecting at the SMTP level" makes no sense at all in your context.
Ted
