Not concerned about FPS?
It's simply not a problem, in practice.
How do IMGate admins know they've got an FP problem
complaints
or their customers know that email from legitimate sources is being blocked?
complaints
If FP's aren't a concern for IMGate then they should be
oh, really?
otherwise faith
"faith", how apropos.
in the email will plummet to a point where it's hardly worth using as a serious business tool.
Why do you content-scanner lovers always trot out this "sky is falling!/wolf!/red herring" BS?
Do you really think the all the IMGate systems and admins are such total failures that their mail systems are "hardly worth using"?
What's even more concerning is this stance takes away power from the recipient to decide what to do with their mail.
Depends in what religion you follow, since this is clearly a religious argument. What's different is that the envelope-rejector cult don't really care about converting the content-scanner true-believers, while the content-scanner true-believers have found The One True God which is of course better than every body else's God, who is then hyped as the Devil. Demon IMGate's links to Al Qaida are being investigated.
Religious point: content-scanners require 100% of all spam to be received/processed/stored. This "takes the power away from" the mail admin to keep this server-exhausting level of bandwidth/resource-consuming crap, typically 75% of all traffic, out of his system.
Do you administer a high-volume mail system?
Here's a Wednesday's IMGate report for a very satisfied IMGate single-criterion heathen who runs three IMGates as equal-preference MX. The report below is for one IMGate, only 1/3 of his traffic:
Grand Totals ------------ messages
163796 received
32001 delivered <<<<<<<<<<<<<
1 forwarded
259 deferred (745 deferrals)
287 bounced
169924 rejected (84%) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
7768 reject warnings
0 held
0 discarded (0%)1024m bytes received 1023m bytes delivered <<<<<<<<<<<< 14935 senders 4316 sending hosts/domains 11927 recipients 1584 recipient hosts/domains
smtpd
169896 connections
12931 hosts/domains
6 avg. connect time (seconds)
296:43:49 total connect timePer-Hour Traffic Summary
time received delivered deferred bounced rejected
--------------------------------------------------------------------
0000-0100 6040 815 22 9 6816
0100-0200 6846 786 37 12 8251
0200-0300 6706 846 37 10 8489
0300-0400 6029 650 20 3 7067
0400-0500 5177 707 30 9 5737
0500-0600 5463 1013 30 12 5715
0600-0700 4944 795 33 13 5214
0700-0800 5709 1211 36 10 5706
0800-0900 6032 1649 46 11 5643
0900-1000 7788 1665 30 14 8827
1000-1100 7961 1796 37 5 8844
1100-1200 7410 1767 41 16 7948
1200-1300 7166 1768 42 21 7357
1300-1400 7772 1687 44 15 8610
1400-1500 8996 1632 27 22 10784
1500-1600 9558 1616 33 14 10677
1600-1700 8645 1735 33 12 9249
1700-1800 7593 1389 21 5 8341
1800-1900 7450 1373 25 16 8050
1900-2000 6031 1280 24 16 6182
2000-2100 6308 1585 24 15 6194
2100-2200 5958 1611 34 13 5676
2200-2300 4978 1357 26 7 4681
2300-2400 7236 1268 13 7 7634Here's the key point: those 32K deliveries are 1 GB of volume. Let's assume from those delivery numbers that the 160K single-criterion rejects (rejected after RCPT TO: so we never accepted the msg DATA, the reject has minimum cost) represent 5 GB of traffic.
What you're recommeding is that this IMGate admin would be much better off sucking in those 5 GB ( sanity check: x 3 = 15 GB, x 30 days = 450 GB, = 2 x T-1 lines dedicated to spam ) of traffic every day, do multi-criteria scanning and then flag every msg as "potential" spam, and then letting his 13K recipients, aka "empowered spam administrators" decide if it's really spam? I'm pretty sure his response would be in the tone of GMAFB.
Weight testing allows recipients to make their own judgement as to what is legitimate email as oppsoed to spam
IMGate admins are fully competent, and successful, to make their own judgement as to what they allow into their systems.
belocking system take that power away and puts it in the hands of admins or worse automated systems. Users become more ignorant, less well informed and reliant on sys admins.
Users do user stuff, admins do admin stuff. ( We recently heard here where a Postini ex-client said his users couldn't manage the admin to of the Postini web interface and per-user spam rules. )
Single point blocking can work
does work
but only in a very narrow range of circumstances.
Wrong. A single criterion is sufficient to reject huge volumes of crap. see above report.
But single criterion is so deliciously evil AND efficient, that's why we sinners over on the Dark Side love it so much.
Have you got a list of IMGate admins we could ask?
Join the IMGate list. Send in your inspectors. We have no WMFP, Weapons of Massive False Positives.
>2. how to report false positives
How do they know they get any unless the sender phones them
Wait! I suppose you are one of the quasi-admin users who are empowered to do their own desktop anti-spam admin? Don't you, and they, know how to use postmaster@ and abuse@ to report problems?
Defeats the object of email in the first place.
Nope. What defeats the object of email is having spam volume running at 50% to 90% of total mail volume. ( above, precisely 84% for Wednesday, 24 hours) Fighting THAT problem __as efficiently as possible__ is the first priority.
>3. how to opt out of all filtering Which defeats the whole point anti-spam filtering - it's a all or nothing scenario - no one wins.
IMGate admins go with the "all" scenario, it wins. You go with what works for you.
Len
_____________________________________________________________________ http://MenAndMice.com/DNS-training: London; San Jose; Wash DC IMGate.MEIway.com: anti-spam gateway, effective on 1000's of sites, free
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
