Zitat von Robert Schetterer <rob...@schetterer.org>:
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 Andreaswhy 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
The point is- Before-Queue content filter is expansive and must be combined with "cheap" reject techologies anyway if you have non negliable load - Tagging spam is nearly useless because no user like to poke through the dustbin to search for potential lost mail
- Spam-Bouncing is no option at all- In general the false positive rate is a higher and more difficult to find out with content filter compared to a sane set of reputation based filters
So the most reasonable approch is to ditch content filter at all and use a sane set of reputation based decisions and maybe greylisting to reject spam at earliest possible stage.
I don't speak about or even recommend to not use spam filtering, but content filter is sometimes the bigger problem compared to some slipping through spams.
Regards Andreas
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Signatur
