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
Hi!
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-answers
to lists and other tradi
