-------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:20:04 +0100 > Von: mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net> > An: postfix-users@postfix.org > Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> Steve a écrit : > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > >> Datum: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:37:18 +0100 > >> Von: mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net> > >> An: postfix users list <postfix-users@postfix.org> > >> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures > > > >> Roman Gelfand a écrit : > >>> I am running postfix with anti spam filter (policyd-weight, sqlgrey, > >>> grossd, dkim, senderid-milter, dspam) . With this configuration, I am > >>> down to under 10 spams a day. Looking at my backend server which is > >>> exchange 2007, I find that all of the remaining spam messages have > >>> spam confidence level of 7 or greater, which implies this is blatant > >>> spam. Is there spam filter software software that works with postfix > >>> that can perform checks similar to that of exchange 2007 spam > >>> confidence level? > >>> > >> we can't really tell since we didn't see the messages that made it > >> through postfix+friends. > >> > >> if the messages contained a URI listed at uribl or surbl, then you > could > >> try using uribl/surbl via milter-link or via spamassassin (via > >> amavisd-new). > >> > >> anyway, You can add spamassassin (via amavisd-new) to your chain and > see > >> if it improves your filtering. > >> > > I am for sure one of the people that should keep his mouth shut since I > have a to strong bias but SpamAssassin? Why? He is using DSPAM and if I > would purpose him another free solution then only something like CMR114 or > OSBF-Lua. > > > > because I don't believe he will improve his filtering by adding more > statistical filters (I think: if this was true, he can improve by better > training/tuning of dspam). > Correct. > In contrsat, adding a finely tuned heuristic > filter will certainly improve his results. > True. > one example: Justin Mason anti-fraud rules (JM_SOUGHT*) will block fraud > mail that you can't block statistically (because you don't get enough of > it to train a statistical filter). unless if you are a large ISP/MSP > with users who report fraud mail quickly and you train your filter with > these reports quickly. > Or you use other ways to filter them out (not statistically). > other examples include: URIBL rules (granted, you can use milter-link), > DNSxL rules applied to Received headers (mail that is "touched" by a > host in Spamhaus SBL is unwanted!)... > > Once again, I said "add spamassassin" not replace dspam. This is because > OP wanted to block "more". but adding SA in a way that improves his > results is not effort free. which is why I said: > Right. > > > >> at one time, the question becomes: is the additional effort worth the > >> pain? > >> > > Good question. > > I personally am from the school of access control before content > filtering. > Me too :) > so I don't feel comfortable arguing for SA vs dspam vs > foofilter. > As I wrote before: I am to biased in that topic so I am not going to argue either. -- GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
