J C Lawrence writes:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:33:00 GMT
> Angel Rivera <angel@wolf.com> wrote:
>> J C Lawrence writes:
>
>>> Which are precisely the reasons I don't and won't do SPAM filtering
>>> at the MTA. The potential cost of error is high, and almost all
>>> ability to supervise and correct is lost.
>
>> A lot of these problems are probably due to misconfigured tools.
>
> Accepted, partially. Various RBLs have a tendency to mark associated
> netblocks, which I find deceptive.
ah, but I don't find those deceptive-at least in those I use. SPEWS, for
example will expand the blocked IPs if they do not act on complaints-the
theory being to give them a little finacial push for them to do the right
thing.
>> I am a firm believer of RBLs and we use that as the first line of
>> defense against spam. If it has come to the point where someone is on
>> one of the RBLs we use-we need a break.
>
>> To that we have added SpamAssassin in tagging mode. The few false
>> positives that it catches are simply tagged and can be whitelisted.
>
> I use RBLs, SpamAssasin, Razor, TMDA and a few privately developed
> filters in concert at LDA time to assist in correct folder filing.
I do use razor and have submitted some spam. I don't use TMDA-more nuisance
than I want to deal with. I do like the idea of configuring SpamAssassin so
each user can configure their own whitelists as they choose, so I will most
likely be heading in that direction.
-ar
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
