I am not proposing a complex method. It is very simple in basis and can be done. Matter of fact the concept is so simple it is hard to believe it hasn't been done before now. I hope IPSwitch is listening... this could be a revolutionary method to fight back against Spammers. -- Edgar D. Taylor President/CEO FIRST Internet Service 69500 Bannock Rd. P.O. Box 355 St.Clairsville, OH. 43950 Voice: (740) 695-2280 Fax: (740) 695-7258 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.1st.net -- Simply 1st in Internet Service! -- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jordan Dorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 12:35 AM Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Excellent SPAM Solution! (please respond withcomments) No argument here... I always prefer more flexibility to less. I guess my primary concern is that the beauty of IMail is in its simplicity - easy install, easy setup, and long periods of reliable, uninterrupted service. That's why I'm careful with my feature requests, since I don't want IMail to turn into an over-engineered piece of crap like MS Exchange, which - in its attempt to be all things to all people - often fails in its core mail server functions. We own licenses for MS Exchange, and we don't use them because IMail serves us with honor - not with aggravation. I'm all for a penalty box, RBL support, and anything else that helps us fight spammers. However, if the addition of all these features means that I'll have to send my admins to a series of $2000 "certification" courses just to understand the system, then I think we've missed the point, and we've diluted what IMail has to offer. There's my 2 cents... don't spend it all in one place. -- *********************************** Jordan Dorf President/CEO TeraLynx Consulting Partners, LLC http://www.teralynx.net *********************************** on 2/7/00 9:36 PM, Ed Taylor at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I agree Imail needs RBL support... has for some time. > > The Penalty Box idea is solidly based. Wouldn't it be better to catch the > Spam before it goes out than to staff the people to respond to the anti-Spam > hate mail? and to look inept? > > Remember the amounts and times need to be adjustable. Your are correct one > size doesn't fits all... some systems need a higher limit than others. If > you are getting a lot in a Spool at 25 raise it to 50 and then to 100 until > the number is reduced to a desired amount to reduce false alarms. This is > MUCH better than 10,000's. > > I believe Imail could effectively insert both methods. RBL and Penalty Box. > This would virtually eradicate Spam via Imail. > > -- > Edgar D. Taylor > President/CEO > FIRST Internet Service > 69500 Bannock Rd. > P.O. Box 355 > St.Clairsville, OH. 43950 > Voice: (740) 695-2280 > Fax: (740) 695-7258 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Web: http://www.1st.net > -- > Simply 1st in Internet Service! > -- > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jordan Dorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 11:14 PM > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Excellent SPAM Solution! (please respond > withcomments) > > > Ed, > > I think your goals are noble, but there isn't any one-size-fits-all rule > that will block spamming attempts. Not that the "penalty box" is a bad > idea... but do you really have the admins to spare in order to make it work? > As you grow, will you be able to sustain the labor costs of having an admin > check and approve each and every mailing above a certain preset limit? I > don't think I would... > > Furthermore, let me give you an example of how this might cause trouble: > > I know several of our customers who - despite the fact that they have list > admin access in their respective IMail hosts - choose to manage their lists > exclusively on the client side, within Outlook or Outlook Express. They > address a message once - to the local list address - and they send it. > Outlook, however, sends the message as if it's addressed to 100, or 200, or > whatever number of users. It's not spam, but the "penalty box" would think > that it was, and a legitimate mailing would be delayed and/or blocked. > > For what it's worth, my view is that IMail will continue to have inferior > spam blocking capabilities until Ipswitch figures out a way to hook it into > the RBL, maintained at http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ . There, you have an > organization that is dedicated to nothing else but hunting and trapping > spammers, and they do a much better job than you, I, or any admin could do. > > There's your challenge, Ipswitch - figure out a hook into the RBL. Other NT > mail servers have it... so, instead of compelling us to switch to a mail > server that sucks, just to get RBL support, please integrate it with IMail. > > Thanks! > > -- > *********************************** > Jordan Dorf > President/CEO > TeraLynx Consulting Partners, LLC > http://www.teralynx.net > *********************************** > > > on 2/7/00 8:29 PM, Ed Taylor at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Have SMTP detect mass deliveries determined by a desired limit and then >> delay delivery or even spool the rest of the messages until the Admin gets > a >> chance to clear it (In kind of a Penalty Box)... this would make the > Spammer >> believe he has succeeded and then the Administrator would be able to > cancel >> the remaining Spam before it is even delivered. >> >> For example: >> >> Someone tries to send a Spam via mail.domain.com can be TO or FROM... when > a >> specific IP tries to send more than 25 messages within a certain period of >> time a flag is raised and then any messages beyond that are spooled for a >> certain amount of time or until the SPAM ceases. A warning message is then >> sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or any desired email address that lets the >> Admin know that a Mass Mail attempt may have been made. At this point the >> remainder of the messages are stored in a seperate directory or seperate >> spool until the Admin gets a chance to check these messages. At that point >> the messages can be delivered if legit or deleted if it is SPAM. This > would >> stop all but the first 25 SPAM's if it is SPAM and the person will assume > he >> was successful. Then he/she can be reprimanded and not even be able to >> successfully send their SPAM. It's a WIN-WIN. I wonder why it hasn't been >> done before... I see no negatives to this scenario. Sure the other SPAM >> rules can still be used but this would be a feature that raises IPSwitch >> above the rest in Spam protection. >> >> I would like people to comment on this idea and if it is believed to be > good >> enough IPSwitch should be encouraged to implement it in the next version >> update. >> >> -- >> Edgar D. Taylor >> President/CEO >> FIRST Internet Service >> 69500 Bannock Rd. >> P.O. Box 355 >> St.Clairsville, OH. 43950 >> Voice: (740) 695-2280 >> Fax: (740) 695-7258 >> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Web: http://www.1st.net >> -- >> Simply 1st in Internet Service! >> -- >> >> Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html >> to be removed from this list. >> > > Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > to be removed from this list. > > > Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > to be removed from this list. > Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list. Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list.
