---++ Approach While I suspect we'll eventually get into anti-spam for any number of reasons, initially, we'll be concerned mainly with members-only mailing lists. Given that, we can solve the spam completely and easily by simply discarding (or better yet, rejecting during the SMTP conversation) all mail from non-list-members. After taking care of the mailman admin approval queues for a few months, I don't see this as being a problem. We get so little legit mail in these queues that I think I'm willing to call the once-every-other-month mis-posted message "acceptable losses". That would kill the gnhlug-jobs list, though. OTOH, that list doesn't appear to get any legit traffic, so maybe it's already dead. A web-based interface would be better anyway, I think. There are a few aliases (chairman@, etc.) that we might have to worry about. -- Main.BenScott - 23 Feb 2006 ---++ Software Given that a lot of the following things are complementary and can be used together, the current layout of the discussion (votes and pros and cons) seems broken to me. -- Main.BenScott - 23 Feb 2006 Votes for: * !MailScanner * Main.BillMcGonigle * !AMaVIS * !SpamAssassin * Main.ColeTuininga * Main.MikeLedoux * Spamhaus rbl(s) * Main.ColeTuininga * Main.BruceDawson (Not necessarily Spamhaus) Experience with (admin level): * !MailScanner * Main.BillMcGonigle * !AMaVIS * !SpamAssassin * Main.ColeTuininga * Main.MikeLedoux * !RBLs * Main.ColeTuininga * Main.BruceDawson Reasons for: * !MailScanner * Easy to configure, modify configuration, very flexible. Auto-updates for !ClamAV, !RulesDuJour. Integrates !SpamAssassin without separate daemon. Disarms spam, phishing, viruses, "active" HTML mail. -- Main.BillMcGonigle - 20 Feb 2006 * !AMaVIS * !SpamAssassin * Easily configured, low maintenance, good results, low-to-zero false-positives. -- Main.MikeLedoux - 21 Feb 2006 * !RBLs * Someone else does the bulk of the work -- Main.BruceDawson - 22 Feb 2006 * Have a small footprint on the system -- Main.BruceDawson - 22 Feb 2006 * Catch 90% of the SPAM. -- Main.BruceDawson - 22 Feb 2006 Reasons against: * !MailScanner * Somewhat CPU intensive. I've never seen decent hardware CPU bound by it though. -- Main.BillMcGonigle - 20 Feb 2006 * !AMaVIS * !RBLs * The lists are maintained by others -- Main.BruceDawson - 22 Feb 2006 * Some discriminate against dynamic and other large block of IPs. -- Main.BruceDawson - 22 Feb 2006
This topic: Org
>
WebHome
>
InternetServer
>
ServerAntiSpam
Topic revision: r1 - 2006-02-22 - BenScott
All content is Copyright © 1999-2025 by, and the property of, the contributing authors.
Questions, comments, or concerns?
Contact GNHLUG
.
All use of this site subject to our
Legal Notice
(includes Terms of Service).