jdow:
> Search for "greylist". That is the technique for which you are groping.
Already know of it, and the delays involved with it put it out of the
equation, for me. Waiting hours for an business email that you need in
mere moments makes it completely untenable. Nevermind ignoring what I'd
already said: My mail is hosted externally, and I'm limited in options.
Aaron Konstam:
>>> 2. It is impossible to run a spam filter without checking the junk
>>> folder since you will lose a few files that you wanted to see. Training
>>> in this regard is everything.
Tim:
>> Yes, and no.
>>
>> You can run spam systems that do the poison bait test that I outlined,
>> and nothing more. If anything posts to my bait address, it gets marked
>> as spam, 100% error free. The same message posted, separately, to my
>> other accounts is identified as spam, also with 100% certainty. Such
>> tests can be done without further care.
>>
>> You can also do other tests, giving them less certainty, but I found it
>> not necessary. The spam I was getting was always addressed to all of my
>> contacts. Sometimes as separate messages, sent at the same time,
>> sometimes as one message addressed to a few of them.
> That cuts down on random address spam. It does nothing for directly
> addressed spam. So consider this technique as a variant on greylisting,
> a technique to cut down on mailer load.
Actually, it did, for me. Once a spammer hit the bait address, that
type of message was identified as being spam. It didn't matter how they
addressed their other spams, they were predetermined as spam, as well.
I was targeting my solution at my problem (currently the same spam
targetted at all my addresses, and others that just targeted my bait
address), it was good enough for me.
Actually, it *is* completely possible to completely ignore checking a
junk folder. If your anti-spam system refuses entry to spam, at the
SMTP level, there is no junk folder. It's up to rejected recipients to
resend, in an altered manner. Most genuine posters won't hit that spam
filter. The only thing you're left with to check is false negatives.
> Tim, there is no quicker way to get on my email s**t list than polluting
> my mailbox with your decision process,
Physician, heal thyself! You're one for continually, and extremely
forcefully, promoting your technique of doing something as the only way
worth bothering. You topped my list of annoying people on this list,
for that reason, long ago. And you've just hit the list with your own
long list of mailbox handling decisions.
> As it happens I load an otherwise idle firewall machine with the email
> checks. And I get angry if I get one spam a week make it through, out of
> around 75 to 100 spams a day (down from a much higher number for reasons
> I don't understand.) That's out of about 700 to 1000 emails a day - this
> list, FreeBSD, and LKML are VERY busy lists. {^_-}
Out of my usual 200+ messages a day, I see about 6-8 spams (very easily
managable with the delete key), and no false positives. I think my
techniques are working rather well, for me. I see no point in jumping
through hoops to implement other anti-spam methods at this point.
--
[tim@bigblack ~]$ uname -ipr
2.6.22.1-33.fc7 i686 i386
Using FC 4, 5, 6 & 7, plus CentOS 5. Today, it's FC7.
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
