-------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:47:11 +0100 > Von: "Steve" <steeeeev...@gmx.net> > An: postfix-users@postfix.org > Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:45:21 -0600 > > Von: Kenneth Marshall <k...@rice.edu> > > An: Roman Gelfand <rgelfa...@gmail.com> > > CC: Steve <steeeeev...@gmx.net>, postfix-users@postfix.org > > Betreff: Re: anti spam measures > > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:40:29PM -0500, Roman Gelfand wrote: > > > Well, it looks like, perhaps, I found the missing link. After adding > > > s25r rules and HELO response verification in main.cf, no spam has > > > siped through. > > > > > > I think that mostly it was HELO response verification that did it. > > > BTW, is there a reason not block emails with incorrect HELO response? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > None really, unless you need to accept mail from misconfigured > > servers. (We do.) > > > Most of do (I would guess). > Stupid me. To fast typing: Most of us do (I would guess). > > > Cheers, > > Ken > > > Steve > > > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Steve <steeeeev...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > -------- 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 ?crit : > > > >> > -------- 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 ?crit : > > > >> >>> 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 f?r alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! > > > > Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01 > > > > > > > > > -- > Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3.5 > - > sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/chbrowser -- Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3.5 - sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/chbrowser
