Antispam - employee's

Tue Jul 15 14:53:03 PDT 2003

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:48:06AM -0700, beacker at misc.com wrote:
>      I've noticed one element missing from the decision for whether to
> do spam filtering at the MTA or the user's mail interface, bandwidth
> availability.  If you are connected to a high speed network then
> transferring every message to the users mail application poses no real
> issue.  If on the otherhand the pipe relatively narrow (56kb/sec) then
> not having to transfer the mail across this interface would indicate
> the filtering be done at the MTA to limit the amount of downloaded data.

There is also a middle road; some POP clients support fetching only
the subjects, and letting users mark them alternately for deletion
without-opening or for proper fetching.

If one has procmail or somethign else with filtering smarts for an LDA,
then the filtering could all be done "at the server" - but still at the
user's behest, and merely to add markup headers about whatever the
decision was.  Then your favorite mode of POP fetching could apply - 
and your local mailer merely has to handle a simple state machine.
Which means that people whose MUA's are underpowered in the filtration
department don't have to totally miss out.

>      Personally I'm using SpamBouncer for this task.  Though I need to
> add in the additional Bayesian filtering to help it make some better
> choices about which messages to allow.
>                           Brad Eacker (beacker at misc.com)

Is the gal who runs SpamBouncer keeping up?  I knew someone who was
using it for a while, but switched to other styles as she took longer
and longer between updates.

  . | .   Heather Stern                  |         star at starshine.org
--->*<--- Starshine Technical Services - * - consulting at starshine.org
  ' | `   Sysadmin Support and Training  |        (800) 938-4078