Spam frustration

[Tyler Aviss]

Just a note,

If you're using clamav for virus scanning as well, you'll probably
want to check that you have a newish version or that you're compiling
from source. I found that the version coming with Debian and some
others was a lot less efficient than the newer sources (notably it can
take 15+ minutes to load the virus DB on a slower machine, vs a minute
or less on the newer version). This tended to much up the whole mail
setup as amavis would have fits looking for a clamav that was stuck
loading.

Other than that, I'd say that the Postfix+Amavis+spamassin+others is
generally a good combo. Once I started sorting my spam to a special
folder rather than trashing it, I discovered just how huge a volume it
was actually getting rid of vs letting through.

Regards,


TJA

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Madison Kelly <linux-5ZoueyuiTZhBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> E K wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have dspam on the server, which I set up painstakingly (in part due
>> to the virtual mail boxes setup) on my email server. I am using Kmail
>> as an email client now and I setup bogofilter using the wizard in
>> Kmail.
>>
>> I have seen claims about dspam and bogofilter being more than 99%
>> accurate which is very much at odd with my experience. In my case,
>> the combined filtering has less than 30% accuracy.
>>
>> Does any one has similar experience? What could have I done wrong to
>> have such a low accuracy in both?
>>
>> EK
>
> I normally *detest* when people respond saying I don't know about your
> setup, but my setup X works great!
>
> So please feel free to tell me to bugger off. :)
>
> That said, I've gone through a couple mail systems in my time, and the spam
> component was getting just terrible. I mean, ready to abandon entire
> domains. Spamassasin, Amavis etc just didn't work for me. Then I started
> with postgrey, and oh wow... virtually no spam at all.
>
> Postgrey requires postfix, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't an
> equivalent for other MTAs. All it does is, when it sees a new address, it
> sends back a temporary failure message to the sending MTA telling it to try
> again in five minutes. Given that the vast majority of spammers ignore all
> returned messages, the spam never gets sent again. Meanwhile, real MTAs
> happily acknowledge the error, wait and send the message again successfully.
>
> It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.
>
> Huge success.
>
> Madi
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
>



-- 
Tyler Aviss
Systems Support
LPIC/LPIC-2
(647) 302-0942
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists