Eric Crist wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:36 AM, Jorn Argelo wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:20:50 +0530, Girish Venkatachalam
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 14:48:35 Dec 15, Jorn Argelo wrote:
Greylisting only works so-so nowadays. There was a couple of months it
was
very effective, but that
On Dec 17, 2007, at 7:56 AM, Eric Crist wrote:
I hear a lot of people saying that greylisting doesn't work, when I
have actual numbers for my network proving it does. These numbers
are from the first week of May 2007 to today:
Greylisted/Rejected Messages: 187560
Spam Tagged Messages:
On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:36 AM, Jorn Argelo wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:20:50 +0530, Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
On 14:48:35 Dec 15, Jorn Argelo wrote:
Greylisting only works so-so nowadays. There was a couple of
months it
was
very effective, but that is long gone. Spa
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:20:50 +0530, Girish Venkatachalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 14:48:35 Dec 15, Jorn Argelo wrote:
>> Greylisting only works so-so nowadays. There was a couple of months it
> was
>> very effective, but that is long gone. Spammers aren't stupid, and they
>> follow the de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Sten and the rest,
We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would
reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The problem
is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means. Googling
reveals a wh
--On December 16, 2007 8:13:34 PM +0100 "Heiko Wundram (Beenic)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Neither of the two packages I recommended are anything close to bayesian
filtering, as they don't actually take measure on the content of the
mail (which isn't available anyway when the corresponding rul
Am Samstag, 15. Dezember 2007 14:48:35 schrieb Jorn Argelo:
>
> Also I believe that rejecting e-mail is a big point of discussion. We
> had an internet e-mail environment built about 3 years ago, and there
> the users were terrorized by spam. We had some users getting 30 spam
> mails a day at leas
On 14:48:35 Dec 15, Jorn Argelo wrote:
> Greylisting only works so-so nowadays. There was a couple of months it was
> very effective, but that is long gone. Spammers aren't stupid, and they
> follow the development of anti-spam techniques as much as e-mail admins do.
> Greylisting is a start, bu
Heiko Wundram (Beenic) wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007 03:12:53 schrieb Chuck Swiger:
Install the following:
/usr/ports/mail/postfix-policyd-weight
/usr/ports/mail/postgrey
Just as an added suggestion: these two (very!) lightweight packages suffice to
keep SPAM out of our com
> > I have found spam assassin with nightly updates of the helpful (there
> > are other people developing new regexs daily).
> >
> > 48 5 * * * /usr/local/bin/sa-update --channel updates.spamassassin.org
> > && /usr/local/etc/rc.d/sa-spamd restart
> >
> > There are other channels you can subscribe
Rudy wrote:
Steve Bertrand wrote:
* Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance.
* Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be
filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software.
Yes, one recommendation for sure. Give up on your first
ow have it running on 4 different sites.
Cheers,
Paul Hamilton
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Sten Daniel Soersdal
> Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2007 10:12 AM
> To: freebsd-questions
> Subject: (postfix) SPAM
Am Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007 03:12:53 schrieb Chuck Swiger:
> Install the following:
>
> /usr/ports/mail/postfix-policyd-weight
> /usr/ports/mail/postgrey
Just as an added suggestion: these two (very!) lightweight packages suffice to
keep SPAM out of our company pretty much completely. Both a
Steve Bertrand wrote:
* Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance.
* Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be
filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software.
Yes, one recommendation for sure. Give up on your first goal. It'll
>> * Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance.
>> * Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be
>> filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software.
> Yes, one recommendation for sure. Give up on your first goal. It'll
> never happen,
On 12/12/07, Sten Daniel Soersdal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would
> reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The
> problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means.
> Googling reveals a whole
On Thursday 13 December 2007 03:35:00 Duane Hill wrote:
>
> It has been pretty low maintenance. I am in the process of evaluating
> the possibility of using amavis-new.
I used amavis-new on a Linux system and lost the ability to have per-user
settings. I had to go with a systemwide setting and
Duane Hill wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:55:45 -0500
> Steve Bertrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I was going to recommend that, but from my experience, there is no
>> real *easy* way to allow users directly to modify their own settings.
>> I am probably wrong though.
>
> Postfix is running
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:55:45 -0500
Steve Bertrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was going to recommend that, but from my experience, there is no
> real *easy* way to allow users directly to modify their own settings.
> I am probably wrong though.
Postfix is running here on a FreeBSD server as a
On Dec 12, 2007, at 5:12 PM, Sten Daniel Soersdal wrote:
We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that
would reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router).
The problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually
means. Googling reveals a whole "uni
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Sten Daniel Soersdal said:
> We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that
> would reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router).
> The problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually
> means. Googling reveals a whole "u
>> * Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance.
>> * Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can
>> be filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software.
>>
>> Neither performance, scalability, license nor cost is of much
>> importance to m
Sten Daniel Soersdal wrote:
> We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would
> reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The
> problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means.
> Googling reveals a whole "universe" of interesting ways b
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Sten Daniel Soersdal said:
> We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that
> would reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router).
> The problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually
> means. Googling reveals a whole "u
We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would
reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The
problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means.
Googling reveals a whole "universe" of interesting ways but what should
i pursue?
The th
25 matches
Mail list logo
