Good Rant!!
At 01:00 AM 9/3/2006, you wrote:
I understand this about 1000%. I've run into these same issues. My current
solution to spam involves greylisting which seems to placate most people -
but I still get some complaints about the delays greylisting causes even
though it reduces spam 95%.
The problem is - when you filter outgoing mail you will get complaints
from customers about recipients not receiving messages they sent. Which
really complicates troubleshooting - because then you don't know if you
filtered it, or the recipient ISP.
I've found that if a customer goes so far as to say "I'll move my
business" then I move them to a completely unfiltered mail system and
inform the customer that they are on their own for virus and spam
filtering. They usually then end up leaving for other reasons.
It's really a lose-lose for tech people. All you can do is the best you
can. Sometimes - that just isn't good enough for people.
I guess thats kinda a rant on my end.
Thanks;
Michael Bagnall
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://elusivemind.net
On Sep 2, 2006, at 11:31 PM, Jeff Koch wrote:
If we were running a corporate mail system I would agree. However, we do
web hosting and we often have the case of someone trying to send mail
from an unauthorized location to one of our customers. With SPF the mail
is blocked and we have one of our customers yelling at us that we're
keeping them from receiving important mail. I've tried explaining that
SPF reduces the spam entering our system but they just threaten to move
their business.
At 10:50 PM 9/2/2006, you wrote:
SPF might help
At 07:56 PM 9/2/2006, you wrote:
Hi Darrel:
Thanks for the rant. I can live with AOL since they send us copies of
their spam complaints. However, ISPs like Comcast, Verizon and ATT just
block our mailservers and take the position that we should be filtering
the outgoing mail from our server so they don't have to use their
resources to do it.
Our users aren't spamming. The problem seems to be spam addressed to
them that is being forwarded to their Comcast (or AOL or ATT) account.
Some of the more clueless setup global catch-alls which then forward
dictionary attack spams to their local ISP.
So we're going to do two things; first, prevent the use of global
catch-alls other than bounce, and, second, filter all email and delete
anything with a spam score over 10 whether the user has spam filtering
turned on or not.
We'd like to filter all outgoing email but it we can't do that with
qmail we'll just filter all incoming email and hope that covers it.
At 07:24 PM 9/2/2006, you wrote:
Why are they demanding that you filter outgoing mail?
If your users are sending illegitimate email it can be traced back to
the source easily enough. received from: headers and radius logs make it
pretty straight forward.
<rant>
I personally don't like the strong arm policies of some of the larger
providers. I'm tired of getting mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED], a majority of
bounces I receive from them are legitimate email lists on my mailman and
ez-mlm servers. There is nothing in place for recourse. I have to deal
with spam from the massive bot nets lurking on their networks. They can
deal with processing the mail from my minuscule user base. I think they
need to provide a better security infrastructure and educate their end
users, rather than try to pass the buck onto a smaller provider.
</rant>
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 14:13 -0400, Jeff Koch wrote:
> Hi
>
> We are getting demands from large ISP's - Comcast, AOL, AT&T - that
we spam
> filter all outgoing email. We're using simscan to filter incoming
email but
> I think that misses email generated by our customers and
autoresponders.
> Can it be accomplished by modifying /home/vpopmail/etc/tcp.smtp ?
>
> How are other qmail users handling this?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> Jeff Koch
>
>
>
Best Regards,
Jeff Koch, Intersessions
Ryugen C. Fisher
Palaver Consulting Group
<http://www.palaver.org>http://www.palaver.org
*Serving our clients since 1984*
Best Regards,
Jeff Koch, Intersessions
Best Regards,
Jeff Koch, Intersessions
