Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: Another SPAM doubt

Expand Messages
  • Sergio Ferreira
    Hi, Chris, ... I read about It too, seems to be a good one really. But, the Boss wants 100% free software solution. Therefore, if I propose It He gonna starts
    Message 1 of 19 , Dec 1, 2005
      Hi, Chris,

      >>>>>-----Original Message-----
      >>>>>From: owner-postfix-users@...
      >>>>>[mailto:owner-postfix-users@...] On Behalf Of
      >>>>>Chris St. Pierre
      >>>>>Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 2:47 PM
      >>>>>To: Kelly Sauke
      >>>>>Cc: postfix-users@...
      >>>>>Subject: Re: Another SPAM doubt
      >>>>>
      >>>>>We use Sophos PureMessage (not free), currently with Sun's
      >>>>>JMS. We'll be moving to Postfix this summer, and taking
      >>>>>PureMessage with us, as it integrates with Postfix.
      >>>>>PureMessage is a joy to administer -- it includes both an
      >>>>>easy web interface and a powerful CLI, very un*x-like
      >>>>>behavior (i.e., well-documented, plain-text config files),
      >>>>>and it's written mostly in Perl -- a plus for us, as we're
      >>>>>pretty proficient in Perl here.
      >>>>>
      >>>>>The downside is cost, which is not inconsiderable.
      >>>>>However, we looked at SpamAssassin and then at PureMessage
      >>>>>and the decision was pretty easy.
      >>>>>
      >>>>>Chris St. Pierre
      >>>>>Unix Systems Administrator
      >>>>>Nebraska Wesleyan University
      >>>>>

      I read about It too, seems to be a good one really. But, the Boss wants 100%
      free software solution. Therefore, if I propose It He gonna starts to kill
      me very slowly. :-)



      >>>>>On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Kelly Sauke wrote:
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>Michael Katz wrote:
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>> SA/Amavis is clearly the most widely deployed solution on this
      >>>>>>> mailing list, but there is another world that exists
      >>>>>outside of the
      >>>>>>> mailing list and there are many options that integrate
      >>>>>with Postfix
      >>>>>>> that are more accurate, require less administration and
      >>>>>will perform better.
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>How about some examples of these other options?
      >>>>>>

      Thanks,

      Sergio
    • Covington, Chris
      ... One correction - we are not using per-user databases. It s a single per-company database that people can train on mistakes. ... Chris Covington IT Plus
      Message 2 of 19 , Dec 2, 2005
        On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 05:46:38PM -0500, Jorey Bump wrote:
        > Don't overlook Chris' point about scalability, which cuts both ways. I'm
        > not an ISP, and support most of my clients down to their desktops, so
        > eliminating spam and viruses can save me support calls down the line.
        > But in a large general purpose population, per-user spam categorization
        > may be mandatory.

        One correction - we are not using per-user databases. It's a single
        per-company database that people can train on mistakes.

        ---
        Chris Covington
        IT
        Plus One Health Management
        75 Maiden Lane Suite 801
        NY, NY 10038
        646-312-6269
        http://www.plusoneactive.com
      • Covington, Chris
        ... No, DSPAM can be used as an LMTP content-filter, which supports per-user opt-in or opt-out enrollment. If foo@bar.com is opted-in, then that message will
        Message 3 of 19 , Dec 2, 2005
          On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 11:11:06PM +0100, Robert Felber wrote:
          > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:07:04PM -0500, Jorey Bump wrote:
          > > now on a low-volume site, running SA in a before-queue content filter using
          > > spampd.
          >
          > Out of curiousity, how does dspam handle multirecipient mail?
          >
          > > RCPT TO:<foo@...>
          > > RCPT TO:<foo2@...>
          > < OK
          > > DATA
          > < OK
          > > headers:
          > >
          > > body
          > > .
          > < 4xx|5xx
          >
          > What, if foo2 doesn't want to use dspam? In that case, he would lose the mail
          > still. Or am I wrong?

          No, DSPAM can be used as an LMTP content-filter, which supports per-user
          opt-in or opt-out enrollment. If foo@... is opted-in, then that
          message will be quarantined for him and sent to foo2@.... Or it can
          be just tagged for foo@... and not for foo2@.... DSPAM is very
          flexible in how you use it.

          ---
          Chris Covington
          IT
          Plus One Health Management
          75 Maiden Lane Suite 801
          NY, NY 10038
          646-312-6269
          http://www.plusoneactive.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.