From: Magnus Bäck (magnusdsek.lth.se)
Date: Tue May 02 2006 - 15:32:27 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tuesday, May 02, 2006 at 22:22 CEST,
     Charles Gregory <cgregoryhwcn.org> wrote:

> Agreed, but we're in a weird spot where we have tried to implement the
> 'real' anti-spam solutions with appropriate per-user opt-in
> mechansisms, and excuse my candor, but the users are just so (ahem)
> unknowledgable that they don't understand the idea of setting their
> filter properly to avoid false positives. And so a lot of users set
> them in 'test mode' without realizing that is what it is, and then
> complain that the filter "doesn't work" - and then there are a bunch
> of people who can't even be bothered trying to turn it on. So I try to
> skim the few really repetitive and obvious spams, like the penny stock
> ads.... Which was working okay until I started getting base64 copies
> of them..... (sigh once more)

You already have SpamAssassin up and running, so we not configure that
tool to your liking?

> Not sure there *is* such a beast. But I notice that spamassassin has a
> score for BASE64_NO_NAME so maybe there are one or two forms of
> 'misuse' that could be caught?

There probably is, but it would surely be unwise to use it for anything
other than scoring (as opposed to flat-out rejections). That rules out
body_checks.

--
Magnus Bäck
magnusdsek.lth.se

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]