Gary Fine, let them use SA to test their filth out. However, they can only get at the stock SA. They can't have "my" SA and that has *my* rules in it, ie rules designed specifically by me for my mail feed (or at least the company I work for) Also, they can't fool BigEvil either then there is Popcorn, backhair etc etc Also, if they do get through then someone here will post the results of their testing and we get to put a better SA together. At some point spammer gives up (with luck) or gets a real job.
Ok, so I am tailoring a setup on behalf of 4000 odd people which is a bit more justified than for a single user except where the satisfaction of blocking spam outweighs the amount of time doing it ... It's the age old closed vs open source arguement - just type "rant" or "holy war" into Google filtered according to taste for a full run down. Cheers Jon Gerdes >>> "Gary Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/15/03 03:12pm >>> Rubin, About a week ago a guy asked how to use SA to check the emails before he sent them for some mail list (or some private promo thing). I think that problem is that spammers themselves are starting to use product like SA to validate if an email is spam or not so they can fool the system. I don't think there is a clear and easy way to stop them if they are using the same tools. Just my $0.02. As for the resources we use internal mail relays and they sit idle even though they use SA and AV on the same box. I personally think the performance is acceptable for the benefit that we see out of it. Gary Smith -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rubin Bennett Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 9:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SAtalk] Clever spam (first of many, I'm afraid...) << Message: Re: >> << File: signature.asc >> The spammers are getting smarter about Bayes... this one sneaked through SA 2.6, a well trained Bayes database, and the BigEvil rules with a score of 1.0 out of 5. What to do? I'm sure that the sleazebags that come up with these will send many of them now that they've figured out it works. It's starting to look like we're going to have to teach SA how to read full sentences and/ or paragraphs, and making sure that it can pick out when someone dumps a random collection of hammy words into a message... And, has anyone given any thought to working the SA engine up in C or something faster than Perl? I've seen many issues with system resources and SA, and the answer keeps coming back as one of two responses: 1. Get more system resources 2. Throttle SA to a certain number of simultaneous threads I'd be very happy to see a 3rd possibility: make SA less hoggy of the resources, so that one could run more instances with less CPU etc.. Kind of like what happened with MRTG and the rateup routine (was Perl, then some kind soul re-wrote it in C and exponentially improved it's performance). Just a thought... Rubin -- Rubin Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> RB Technologies ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id78&alloc_id371&op=click _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id78&alloc_id371&op=click _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
