On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Janne Peltonen wrote:
5/week? Whee. We might achieve something remotely approaching that with
personalized bayesian filtering (a multi-discipline, internationaly
connected university receives quite a lot of ham that looks very much
like spam, so we are a bit paranoid abou
Janne Peltonen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:58:04PM +0200, Rudy Gevaert wrote:
>>> Now I'd like to ask the people on this list about their experiences
>>> using the sieve vacation module. The risks of automatically
>>> responding to spam / automatically forwarding spam / ending up in
>>> sor
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:54:38AM -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
> In my opinion, no amount of backscatter is acceptable, so I don't allow
> user-configurable autoresponders or forwarding. My antispam measures
> have reduced the amount that makes it to the user's inbox to about
> 5/week, so I will ma
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:58:04PM +0200, Rudy Gevaert wrote:
> > Now I'd like to ask the people on this list about their experiences
> > using the sieve vacation module. The risks of automatically
> > responding to spam / automatically forwarding spam / ending up in
> > sorceror's apprentice mode
Janne Peltonen wrote:
> Now I'd like to ask the people on this list about their experiences
> using the sieve vacation module. The risks of automatically
> responding to spam / automatically forwarding spam / ending up in
> sorceror's apprentice mode / ending up having our mail servers
> blacklist
Janne Peltonen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 07:47:28AM -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
>
>> If you don't get much spam, sieve vacation is suitable.
>
> But how much is much, in your opinion? Say, 4 spam messages per day per user,
> with 50 000 users? Would that be much? If, during summer, 25% of our
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 07:47:28AM -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
> > The policy in our university has long been to discourage using auto
> > responders (two of the main reasons being, we don't want to end up
> > forwarding spam to innocent third parties, and neither want to
> > automatically confirm to
Janne Peltonen wrote:
> The policy in our university has long been to discourage using auto
> responders (two of the main reasons being, we don't want to end up
> forwarding spam to innocent third parties, and neither want to
> automatically confirm to a spammer that an address works - auto-answer
