Am 22.03.2012 09:15, schrieb xTrade Assessory: > Robert Schetterer wrote: >>> >> >> however , i have a ham/spam transport learn mail address, >> nearly null users forwards something to it, no wonder >> the false positve rate is nearly null >> >> in fact , there are systems with webmail guis for classify >> spam i.e aol, reality shows users dont use it very wise >> perhaps clicking field spam and delte are to near etc or they are simply >> dummy >> >> my conclusion dont waste your time to implement complicated mechs >> for ham/spam training, work on the tagging/rejecting side to reduce >> false positive rate >> > > Hi > > I can not agree more to that ... at the end, sooner or later, you > discover having spent time on something with erroneous or no return at > all ... not even talking about the support-overhead this extra mboxes > will create > > beside the obvious you already said it is still highly questionable if a > "user" is able to classify reliable. > > also, IMO, most SPAM hits obvious account names/combinations and most > user are not affected by the problem, unless their addresses are > standard_names@ > > since years I do not care so much any more and run a pretty standard > spamassassin but I query maillog for delivering attempts to not existing > accounts. First I slow it down after 2 invalid destination addresses but > also record the sender details and block them for three month from > within access file (I run sendmail everywhere) > > that works so smooth for me, still with almost zero cpu overhead for > spamd and it is practical, easy and cheap, the result is, before I got > on certain accounts 50 SPAMS per day, now 2 maybe 3 and that numbers > are for mservers with each of them having +50.000 accounts going through > > Hans >
something like http://mailfud.org/postpals/ may helpfull too at some sites i have heard amavis has some equal mech however there is lot a postmaster can do, before trusting users spam/ham classify ( i.e there is the spamassassin black and whitlist feature ) , but if somebody do so ,dont trust your users in total users train should ever be one tag out of others, so i.e it may high bayes points etc but should not to lead for high tagging over spam/ham boarder in one tag step ( this is for isp style mail systems, the policy might be other for dediacted company mail etc , but its still complicated there too) but as reality shows i.e at aol their user abuse spam reporting program is totally broken , i never had a "true spam alarm" of their users by sended mails from my systems and on the other side the aol mail systems itself are very high rate for trying deliver in spam to my servers -- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer Germany/Munich/Bavaria
