On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 08:05:45PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote: > I'm actually curious about the expected behavior of spamd and > how effective it is against spam on its own (i.e., without any > additional SPAM retardants, such as SpamAssassin, etc).
Putting spamd (with greylisting) on some decently busy (for us) domains that were getting *loads* of spam, I saw an immediate drop of about 80-95% in spam. The range is because not all spam comes in the same way. spam from dsl/cable botnets is caught, while open relay spam is not. Spam from vaious sources seems to come in waves. > So, what I would like to know from spamd users/developers, if > this is a typical and expected result? It seems normal enough. What I and some others have done in addition is to add a whitelist that bypasses spamd altogether. Into that whitelist goes gmail (host -ttxt gmail.com) and other large providers using pools for outgoing mail. If you are concerned about the entries that you saw whitelisted, have you checked where the mail went that they sent? If this is wholly your domain then you should be able to easily see that. If you can't look (because it's other people's mail) then you can still ask around and see if people have been getting spam. Also, though spamd works GREAT, it is what it is. As I mentioned above, it will not stop spam from real mail servers, whether open relays or spam house servers. You may get to the point where you do want to add ports/packages). I deal with a few different domains. On some I need more filtering, and on others I use only spamd. Don't add extra stuff unless you find you need it. Even so, having spamd take the major brunt will let you do additional filtering without needing a beefy server. -- Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
