I'm not going to get into this duel between you and Scott, but part of what you said in your last e-mail left me a bit puzzled. First, I am curious as to exactly what percentage of false positives you personally find acceptable when implementing rules.
The approach of envelope-rejection means we don't have the DATA to scan and calaculte FP rates. I know the content-scanning people are religiously convinced this is a fatal flaw, doomed to fail, incapable of succeeding, but in practice it works well, and it's not at all limited to IMGate, which is in no way unique or innovative. And for some reason, a significant number of Declude and/or Sniffer clients have decided to install IMGate.
Personally, I always shoot for a better percentage than one in 1,000 (.1%), but I am a tad conservative. For instance, I hardly even use the "phrase" filter built-in to iMail, but I am making quite extensive use of Boolean filtering to scan for combinations of "bad words" or phrases. Although this puts a higher demand on the processor
You accept to spend your resources to receive and scan the spam, that's your choice
Other mail admins choose to keep the crap out of their networks, rejecting before the DATA command, and handle complaints case by case. They are not fixated on false positives.
Secondly, how can someone request to be whitelisted if they are already blacklisted by your mail server. :-)
postmaster@ and abuse@ should not be filtered. :-) The silly objections of "people don't know how use postmaster@ and abuse@, or look up a website to get an email address or find the "contact us" telephone or fill out a web page form, etc, etc." It's impossible to protect people from their own ignorance.
Len
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/
