Better spam filter for postfix
in [Postfix]
|
From: "Steve" on 16 Jul 2010 14:06 -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:09:54 -0500 > Von: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(a)rice.edu> > An: Mikael Bak <mikael(a)t-online.hu> > CC: postfix-users(a)postfix.org > Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 02:55:17PM +0200, Mikael Bak wrote: > > Steve wrote: > > [big snip] > > >> So you have made your point. You prefer (or are required) to have > user in > > >> control. > > >> > > > Yes. The big problem is that no solution out there is 100% accurate > for all users. So the only way to make the user happy is to delegate the > control to him. > > > > > > > Can't speek for all users. But I have the impression that users don't > > want to go through piles of spam and take action. They just expect the > > damn spam filter to work by itself. > > > > At least our users expect this :-) > > > > Mikael > > > Hi, > > Speaking for our environment, we use DSPAM with a pre-trained > base so that when a user starts initially, they get reasonably > good spam filter/false positive rates. This means that instead > of "piles of spam" they have just a few mistakes and the accuracy > increases quickly from there to the point that the vast majority > of users have to train perhaps a couple of messages a month. > > The initial pretraining is good enough relative to other > systems that many never train at all. Rule based filtering, > on the other hand, was very labor intensive for the users > and fraught with false-positive and negatives. As a member of > the support team, we have many fewer problems regarding spam > E-mail since we changed to DSPAM from a purely filter-based > approach. We use SpamAssassin via amavisd-new and statistical > filtering such as that provided by DSPAM, CRM114, and others > do a much better job with much less maintenance. > And if I am not wrong that you have a large DSPAM installation. Right? Could you tell us how many users you have? Is the whole university campus using DSPAM? > Cheers, > Ken > Steve -- GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
From: Kenneth Marshall on 16 Jul 2010 15:30 On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:06:11PM +0200, Steve wrote: > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:09:54 -0500 > > Von: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(a)rice.edu> > > An: Mikael Bak <mikael(a)t-online.hu> > > CC: postfix-users(a)postfix.org > > Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix > > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 02:55:17PM +0200, Mikael Bak wrote: > > > Steve wrote: > > > [big snip] > > > >> So you have made your point. You prefer (or are required) to have > > user in > > > >> control. > > > >> > > > > Yes. The big problem is that no solution out there is 100% accurate > > for all users. So the only way to make the user happy is to delegate the > > control to him. > > > > > > > > > > Can't speek for all users. But I have the impression that users don't > > > want to go through piles of spam and take action. They just expect the > > > damn spam filter to work by itself. > > > > > > At least our users expect this :-) > > > > > > Mikael > > > > > Hi, > > > > Speaking for our environment, we use DSPAM with a pre-trained > > base so that when a user starts initially, they get reasonably > > good spam filter/false positive rates. This means that instead > > of "piles of spam" they have just a few mistakes and the accuracy > > increases quickly from there to the point that the vast majority > > of users have to train perhaps a couple of messages a month. > > > > The initial pretraining is good enough relative to other > > systems that many never train at all. Rule based filtering, > > on the other hand, was very labor intensive for the users > > and fraught with false-positive and negatives. As a member of > > the support team, we have many fewer problems regarding spam > > E-mail since we changed to DSPAM from a purely filter-based > > approach. We use SpamAssassin via amavisd-new and statistical > > filtering such as that provided by DSPAM, CRM114, and others > > do a much better job with much less maintenance. > > > And if I am not wrong that you have a large DSPAM installation. Right? Could you tell us how many users you have? Is the whole university campus using DSPAM? We currently use DSPAM for our campus and have about 15k email accounts. The average number of tokens is less than 20k per person thanks to the pre-trained corpus. Cheers, Ken
From: Charles Marcus on 16 Jul 2010 16:44 On 2010-07-16 2:04 PM, Steve wrote: > Using something like greylisting is no option either because that > damn steel price can change a bunch of cents in minutes and then > multiply that with a gazillion of kilos a ship can transport and > there you are: a lot of money can be lost by holding back a mail for > 2 Minutes. Sorry for adding to the noise, but that is silly... whoever would rely on *email* for such time critical information is insane - and doomed to go broke.
From: "Steve" on 16 Jul 2010 17:19 -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:44:23 -0400 > Von: Charles Marcus <CMarcus(a)Media-Brokers.com> > An: postfix-users(a)postfix.org > Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix > On 2010-07-16 2:04 PM, Steve wrote: > > Using something like greylisting is no option either because that > > damn steel price can change a bunch of cents in minutes and then > > multiply that with a gazillion of kilos a ship can transport and > > there you are: a lot of money can be lost by holding back a mail for > > 2 Minutes. > > Sorry for adding to the noise, but that is silly... whoever would rely > on *email* for such time critical information is insane - and doomed to > go broke. > Charles, never ever underestimate the end-user. No matter how hard you try to bring any rational thinking into the game... it will not work. btw: They don't rely on email for such time critical information. They use email for communication and when they send an order to supplier X to ship N tons of hot rolled sheets and N tons of tin plate sheets to Dubai then they expect that as soon as the mail leaves their mail client that the mail is arriving at the supplier and the price does not change in the mean time. Again! Don't try to think rational. You can NOT explain them that email can be delayed, can be blocked, can ... whatever. They will NOT understand it. It is the same as explaining a mole how the sun shines. -- GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
From: Wietse Venema on 16 Jul 2010 18:17 Steve: > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:44:23 -0400 > > Von: Charles Marcus <CMarcus(a)Media-Brokers.com> > > An: postfix-users(a)postfix.org > > Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix Steve, I request that you end this thread. Wietse
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Prev: Simple Hack To Get $2000 To Your PayPal Account Next: null client doc |