<<O>>  Difference Topic ServerAntiSpam (r1.3 - 15 Oct 2006 - BenScott)

META TOPICPARENT InternetServer
Changed:
<
<

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. -- BenScott - 23 Feb 2006

The gnhlug-jobs list does get some legit traffic. We have had 9 legit messages so far in February, mixed in with over 100 garbage messages. I am not sure the list is worth keeping in current form, though, the high volume of spam is a PITA. -- MikeLedoux - 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. -- BenScott - 23 Feb 2006

Votes for:

Experience with (admin level):

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. -- BillMcGonigle - 20 Feb 2006
  • AMaVIS
  • SpamAssassin
    • Easily configured, low maintenance, good results, low-to-zero false-positives. -- MikeLedoux - 21 Feb 2006
  • RBLs
    • Someone else does the bulk of the work -- BruceDawson - 22 Feb 2006
    • Have a small footprint on the system -- BruceDawson - 22 Feb 2006
    • Catch 90% of the SPAM. -- BruceDawson - 22 Feb 2006

Reasons against:

  • MailScanner
    • Somewhat CPU intensive. I've never seen decent hardware CPU bound by it though. -- BillMcGonigle - 20 Feb 2006
  • AMaVIS
  • RBLs
    • The lists are maintained by others -- BruceDawson - 22 Feb 2006
    • Some discriminate against dynamic and other large block of IPs. -- BruceDawson - 22 Feb 2006
>
>
Content from this page has been moved to ServerMail.

 <<O>>  Difference Topic ServerAntiSpam (r1.2 - 23 Feb 2006 - MikeLedoux)

META TOPICPARENT InternetServer

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. -- BenScott - 23 Feb 2006

Added:
>
>
The gnhlug-jobs list does get some legit traffic. We have had 9 legit messages so far in February, mixed in with over 100 garbage messages. I am not sure the list is worth keeping in current form, though, the high volume of spam is a PITA. -- MikeLedoux - 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. -- BenScott - 23 Feb 2006

 <<O>>  Difference Topic ServerAntiSpam (r1.1 - 22 Feb 2006 - BenScott)
Line: 1 to 1
Added:
>
>
META TOPICPARENT InternetServer

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. -- 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. -- BenScott - 23 Feb 2006

Votes for:

Experience with (admin level):

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. -- BillMcGonigle - 20 Feb 2006
  • AMaVIS
  • SpamAssassin
    • Easily configured, low maintenance, good results, low-to-zero false-positives. -- MikeLedoux - 21 Feb 2006
  • RBLs
    • Someone else does the bulk of the work -- BruceDawson - 22 Feb 2006
    • Have a small footprint on the system -- BruceDawson - 22 Feb 2006
    • Catch 90% of the SPAM. -- BruceDawson - 22 Feb 2006

Reasons against:

  • MailScanner
    • Somewhat CPU intensive. I've never seen decent hardware CPU bound by it though. -- BillMcGonigle - 20 Feb 2006
  • AMaVIS
  • RBLs
    • The lists are maintained by others -- BruceDawson - 22 Feb 2006
    • Some discriminate against dynamic and other large block of IPs. -- BruceDawson - 22 Feb 2006
View topic | Diffs | r1.3 | > | r1.2 | > | r1.1 | More
Revision r1.1 - 22 Feb 2006 - 19:48 - BenScott
Revision r1.3 - 15 Oct 2006 - 16:10 - BenScott