On Sat, Aug 31, 2002, Jeremy Blosser wrote: > No, I will feel chained to my mail servers as people take that attitude, > which has the nice effect of making it so they don't see the spam in their > inbox, but the mail servers still see it and have to not only deal with it > as normal, but also have to deal with the added processing introduced by > determining if each and every message is spam or not, and what to do with > it if it is (bounce it, eat it, or add it to Vipul's database or the local > bogofilter lists, etc.).
FWIW, I use Panix for my shell. They have Spamassassin installed system-wide. So anyone who wants to use it can put an INCLUDERC in their procmailrc to enable it. And of course you have your own prefs for it. But what they ask is for people to put it at the end of the procmailrc to reduce overhead as much as possible. > Oh, we're also having to continually change our tactics as the spammers do > the same. Within days of implementing Vipul's (initially bouncing spam > mails to protect against false-positives as we tested the effects it was > having) we started getting spam with the forged return addresses set to > inside our network, so that when the mails bounced they bounced right into > user mailboxes[1]. I've been noticing that one too. I'm not familiar with Vipul's or TMDA, but Spamassassin has a rule for when the From: and To: are the same. > [2] BTW, if you get a clever idea for a new spam blocking system, please > don't write it in perl. Anything that a serious mail server has to run per > every message damn well better be in C or better. Oh. :) -Ken
