On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 01:14:04AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > <snip> > > To reduce your downloads, it looks as if you can either use > fetchmail's size limit (limit keyword, but it doesn't delete the > message unless you use the somewhat dangerous flush option) or > mailfilter for a somewhat more refined tool (use fetchmail's > preconnect option to invoke it automatically). I'm looking into > installing mailfilter now. I tried the preconnect but with some sort of errors?? > > Oh, the other thing I notice is that fetchmail responds to various > spam codes if you enable "antispam" option, and so could delete the > message as soon as your MTA determines it's spam. I think exim4, at > least, has some options for making decisions before accepting the > whole message. > > I'm a little worried that whatever test I put in is going to zap > something real, and most likely it will also still let a lot of stuff > through (e.g., bounce messages for which the attachment has been > stripped). > > I'm ready to switch ISP's too, but I don't know who's better. I did > finally have an intelligent conversation with someone at earthlink > today. She said their numbers showed Swen had much lower penetration > than Sobig (like 0.2% of all earthlink's mails), and they had made a > policy decision not to filter it out. I got an email. It said that they did not want to stop all attachments as that would stop some legitimate ones. This is a stupid answer. Then they said that they wanted to protect privacy by not scanning attachments. I said if you can scan for spam, there is not difference in scanning for viruses since they both scan the mail. They said 'sorry for the minor inconvience'. I said having my email box stuffed and me missing emails is not a minor inconvience. And their spam 'whitelist' is useless. So, I said I will change to an ISP that does a better job and allows encrypted email access. -Kevin She wasn't familiar with all > the reasons for the decision, but thought the resources required to > filter (since it requires looking at message content, rather than just > headers, to do it reliably) may have been a factor. I asked her to > relay my dissatisfaction with the situation, and suggested that their > numbers might be missing lots of the mails, since I've seen several > reporrts that Swen is the biggest viral worm yet. It certainly the > biggest one I've been hit with, but maybe I'm just lucky. > > That I found this satisfying is a sad commentary on their support, > which previously included mostly people not responding or telling me > that they "couldn't" filter out the virus. I get very annoyed when > people make obviously false statements to justify inaction. > > Maybe I should point earthlink at Karsten Self's reasons to avoid > challenge-response systems, since earthlink's "strong" spam protection > feature is basically C-R for anyone not on your whitelist. I have a > feeling other ISPs (e.g. AOL?) are doing the same. I use their medium > setting, which does filter out some stuff. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
