Am 16.07.2010 09:27, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de: > Zitat von Henrik K <h...@hege.li>: > >> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:06:44PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >>> >>> I will say generically that for an OP who has the time, avoiding content >>> filters and using SMTP time blocking methods is probably more >>> effective in the >>> long run and makes more efficient use of network and server resources. >> >> You always have time to advertise content filters being "bad", so I just >> have to make a pointless rebuttal.. >> >> Can you tell me any big public service (not a one man server) that >> doesn't >> use content filtering at all? By public I don't mean a site that has the >> ability to block freemailers, universities, etc hacked accounts.. > > In Germany many companies have given up on content filtering because it > is not allowed to drop mail after accepting, if there is a chance that > private mail *could* be involved. So with content filter your only > choice would be to tag spam and let the user sort out, which lead to no > advantage for using content filter at all. > So content filter are mostly a selling point and not a favorable > "solution". > > Regards > > Andreas > > why not use spamass-milter drops spam during smtp income stage this is allowed anyway, also clamav-milter with sanesecurity works nice this way, bouncing mail after recieve by whatever reason may produce backscatter, so it isnt a good idea in every case or country, normally you only flag spam and pass it and/or hold it ( for human postmaster inspection ) i. if use amavis with after queue filter , mail always needs daily support, and companies who stopped filtering in germany ( i dont know one ) have mostly a problem with helpless admins ignorant managers/users etc, not with law or existing antispam solutions so its mostly a human problem -- Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer Germany/Munich/Bavaria
