We have two Imgate systems up and running on BSD Linux. The first took
about 5 hours from start to finish, second was much easier, about 2 hours.
Once set, we update the filters daily with new spam info, takes about twenty
minutes each morning. That give us a little better edge on capturing spam
before it sneaks through the Maps databases. Or you could keep things at
default and it will catch the majority of the stuff.
Rich
----- Original Message -----
From: "PC Tech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 11:09 AM
Subject: RE: ORBSSRC: RE: [IMail Forum] Time to fix "Refuse NULL <> Senders"
option!
> I looked into IMGate. I'm currently using iMail as a gateway for some of
> our internal mail servers as well as for some of our external e-mail
> servers. It looks interesting. I haven't downloaded it and tried it
> though.
>
> # -----Original Message-----
> # From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> # [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of NetQuick Mail
> # Administrator
> # Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 10:46 AM
> # To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> # Subject: Re: ORBSSRC: RE: [IMail Forum] Time to fix "Refuse NULL <>
> # Senders" option!
> #
> #
> # 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/
> #
> #
>
>
> 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/
