Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:13:34 +0100 From: "Heiko Wundram (Beenic)" <wundram@beenic.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (postfix) SPAM filter? Message-ID: <200712162013.34937.wundram@beenic.net> In-Reply-To: <4763DB33.6080908@wcborstel.com> References: <476086E2.5030402@gmail.com> <200712130859.09396.wundram@beenic.net> <4763DB33.6080908@wcborstel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am Samstag, 15. Dezember 2007 14:48:35 schrieb Jorn Argelo: > <snip> > Also I believe that rejecting e-mail is a big point of discussion. We > had an internet e-mail environment built about 3 years ago, and there > the users were terrorized by spam. We had some users getting 30 spam > mails a day at least. This setup was running amavis, spamassassin, > postfix, postgrey, dcc and razor. Unfortunately, over time the bayes > filter got incorrectly trained, and it sometimes rejected valid e-mails. > If there's something you DON'T want to happen it's that. And also > troubleshooting those kind of things can be quite hard ... Neither of the two packages I recommended are anything close to bayesian filtering, as they don't actually take measure on the content of the mail (which isn't available anyway when the corresponding rules are effective in the Postfix restriction mechanism), but rather on the conditions the mail is received under. This is what makes them (much more) lightweight (than for example a full statistical or bayesian filter) in the first place. I've not had a single false positive which wasn't explained with incorrect or plain invalid mailserver configuration on the sender side so far with these two packages, and the possibility of a false negative in our current environment is something close to 1%, at least according to my mailbox (which gets publicized enough by posting to @freebsd.org addresses). -- Heiko Wundram Product & Application Development
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200712162013.34937.wundram>