I just thought I'd toss this in as other possibilities. These solutions
would help eliminate the other spammers who forge Email headers, steal Email
accounts, or hijack servers.
Have you taken a look at IMgate? It's free software and requires
minimal hardware on your end. There is also Declude which is the lowest
price anti-spam gateway that I know of short of being free. It is loaded on
the same server as your Imail. Both solutions have received good reviews in
this forum.
----- Original Message -----
From: "PC Tech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:26 PM
Subject: RE: ORBSSRC: RE: [IMail Forum] Time to fix "Refuse NULL <> Senders"
option!
> I know and am aware of the drawbacks. But it's a benefit versus risk
thing.
> I get more benefit from it than risk, so I do it.
>
> Percentage-wise the majority of the spam I get is from null senders.
> Personally, I'd rather NOT have to use the null sender option. But, on
the
> other hand, I am not paying a mint for some damn anti-spam front end that
> won't work well with null senders. *IF* they pass that legislation where
> spammers will get fined $500 for each spam, then I will disable it and
then
> charge them for each and every spam that my users get.
>
> I have a ZERO tolerance policy on spam.
>
> # -----Original Message-----
> # From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> # [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
> # Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 10:07 AM
> # To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> # Subject: RE: ORBSSRC: RE: [IMail Forum] Time to fix "Refuse NULL <>
> # Senders" option!
> #
> #
> #
> # ># but no longer are. Same with refusing <>. It causes other
postmasters
> # ># troubles.
> # >It only causes the postmasters that allow their mail users that SEND
mail
> # >with null headers problems the way I see it
> #
> # The problem arises if you send an E-mail to a non-existant user on one
of
> # our domains. If our mail server bounces the message back to you,
> # your mail
> # server is going to choke on it, and send it back to
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then, we have to deal with your
> # mistake. That's why many mail admins want to use this new
> # dsn.rfc-ignorant.com test.
> #
> # >If every mail server blocked null senders, the problem would
> # probably go away.
> #
> # Yes, but nobody would ever get any bounce messages. Bounce messages are
> # there for a reason.
> #
> # >According to my logs, my mail server bounces between 5 and 10
> # messages a day
> # >based on null sender.
> #
> # Have you checked to see how many of those are spam, and how many
> # are bounce
> # messages that you're making another postmaster deal with (perhaps the
one
> # that is going to block your mail server)?
> #
> # Even if they are all spam, how many spams do you get per day that
> # don't use
> # the NULL sender? I've just gone back a bit further, and of the past 68
> # spams we've received, not one has used a NULL sender.
> #
> # Of course, you are free to block NULL senders, just so long as you are
> # aware of the possible consequences. If you know the drawbacks, and
still
> # want to do it, it's your choice. My goal is just to make sure
> # that you and
> # others are aware of the drawbacks, and why we feel it's a bad choice.
> #
> # -Scott
> #
> # Declude: Anti-spam and Anti-virus solutions for IMail.
> http://www.declude.com
>
>
>
> Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> to be removed from this list.
>
> An Archive of this list is available at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
>
>
>
> Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> to be removed from this list.
>
> An Archive of this list is available at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
>
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
