Re: [Exim] Re: SPAM filtering

>Most importantly, the idea is to STOP spam, not just put a tag on it
telling my customers that the mail they are looking at is >possibly
spam. They do not want to see that. They do not want to have to download
hundreds of emails over a modem line >(yes, we still have many thousands
of modem users) so their email client can delete it based on one rule
alone. This is where >the problem in fact lies. Not simply making an
already obvious observation that an email is spam and tagging as such.
>
>Tools like exiscan do exactly what a virus tool should do. It stops it.
It doesn't put a tag on it telling a customer that "hey you >got a
virus". It stops it and the customer never sees it. It doesn't kill my
mail server by spawning perl processes for each mail >arriving. Tools
for spam should do exactly that as well. Integrated into exim using
local_scan, stop spam instead of simply >tagging it.
>
>I am sure that spam assassin is a great solution for a number of sites,
but for a busy ISP, it is simply too resource hungry and >results in far
too many complaints from customers.
>
>Jeff

I thought you could tag the mail with SA, and then have Exim halt
delivery if you so choose (based on the existence of the header). Of
course, customers rarely complain about something they never see... :)

Second, I thought one of the main performance drags was addressed by the
daemon version of SA, which loads a single perl process, instead of
spawning new ones for each message.

All that said, I haven't had a chance to install SA yet, so I am no
expert. I am currently using a combination of RBLs and a custom system
filter. But I am salivating at the chance to try SA, as I still get
quite a bit of spam coming into my sever.

Best wishes.

Jim Roberts
Punster Productions, Inc.