On 07/03/11 12:10, Mynabbler wrote:
Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
I'd agree, but users wont rebel against Yahoo unless they begin to see
actual bounces to their sent mail.
I don't know about your end users, but ours typically get flummoxed if mail
from this "well known and trusted" free mail providers would not arrive to
them... There's just too many users actually using their services, mixed
with too many spammers abusing it.
Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
I do agree that we should have FROM_HOTMAIL and FROM_YAHOO so we can
independently decide how to treat their mail separate from typical
FREEMAIL.
Been there, tried that. It is like stopping a river. I've tried metas with
the originating source (FROM_AFRICA rules), metas with keywords, metas with
short_urls... the list of junk coming out of Yahoo and Hotmail is just
endless.
Like you, I've yet to find a reliable set of meta rules to effectively
deal with this junk and invariably it turns into a game of chasing one's
tail.
As I said previously, I've had good success starting from a default
position of SPAM for these abused providers (e.g, 5 points), and then a
well trained bayes database and/or whitelisting known good senders
brings the score back down under the threshold for the legitimate mail.
I guess the old AWL system could be quite effective here too at reducing
the score for known senders. Maybe a set of meta rules to reduce the
score in the absence of spam indicators might work too - say -1 if no
URI is present, -1 if there is only one recipient etc.
But one thing I do know, the default accept policy no longer works and
I'm having more succes with a default block policy.
