Users that want unfiltered email (read: more spam)
J
rather than sooner though. Unfortunately it's happening sooner. I
filter spam via DNS blacklist and a lengthy spamming domain list in my
Sendmail access list. Apparently some users think we're now the "email
police" and they want unfiltered email. What's the best way to give
this to them without stopping filtering for all users? I've seriously
been thinking about trying to find a way to tag a message (with a header
tag) that I think is spam but not reject it. Let the user filter on the
tag. Unfortunately that defeats the purpose of filtering spam in the
first place: to save resoureces be it bandwidth, drive space, or
processor time. I wouldn't mind doing this tagging for a small number
of users, those that request it. I'm thinking that I could also user
the SPAMFRIEND definition in my access list for mail matching
"To:userthatwantsmorespam". I haven't tried this though. How do other
places deal with this user problem? I want to filter out the spam for
everyone unless the request that I don't. Any opinions or past experience?
Thanks
J
Carl Byington
In article <3BEB7919...@linuxnuts.net>, use...@linuxnuts.net says...
>
>...Apparently some users think we're now the "email
>police" and they want unfiltered email...
SPAMFRIEND works nicely for me.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAgUBO+t809ZjPoeWO7BhAQEq1AQAjw1I0IySjze5LD0Xtx6fdsu/ON8JGhkP
UOrxezlXFVJpoLqQUR1JFFQ8azr3zv20TMRrrWB1POGwzpBFaiVIDp0IXlZujAY8
9S4MUekmk2cwlxJk/ahe1PyX64Mpz0hpwMZ969GO48H4uAikRfTj1llRDjwCDvcw
y3Il9dlnZiY=
=mYMA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hans-Martin Mosner
> ...
> I'm thinking that I could also user
> the SPAMFRIEND definition in my access list for mail matching
> "To:userthatwantsmorespam". I haven't tried this though. How do other
> places deal with this user problem? I want to filter out the spam for
> everyone unless the request that I don't. Any opinions or past experience?
We're using the SPAMFRIEND thing with good results. From the logs, I see
that those who want their spam get it, and the others aren't bothered.
Cheers,
Hans-Martin
Larry Kilgallen
> I've suspected that it would happen eventually. I was hoping for later
> rather than sooner though. Unfortunately it's happening sooner. I
> filter spam via DNS blacklist and a lengthy spamming domain list in my
> Sendmail access list. Apparently some users think we're now the "email
> police" and they want unfiltered email. What's the best way to give
> this to them without stopping filtering for all users?
Set up a separate machine that accepts all mail.
It might have to be bigger to handle the load.
Charge (chargeback) more for that machine.
If there is no "charging" for use of your resources, then there is
no chance of getting users to make responsible decisions.
pig...@fuckyou.co.uk
Quaestor
> I've suspected that it would happen eventually. I was hoping for later
> rather than sooner though. Unfortunately it's happening sooner. I
> filter spam via DNS blacklist and a lengthy spamming domain list in my
> Sendmail access list. Apparently some users think we're now the "email
> police" and they want unfiltered email. What's the best way to give
> this to them without stopping filtering for all users?
Tell them to use a spamhaus as an ISP.
Hey, "Man who go to be with itchy butthole wake up with stinky finger." You
can't be in bed with spammers and out of it too. Filter all and be done with
it.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Spammers: Don't tread on me - your spam is not allowed at my place.
Fee for processing UCE, UBE, SPAM: $1000 per item, plus collection.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
adam brower
what i do is to tell complainers that they can receive all
the spam they want at numerous other providers, whom they
are encouraged to contact. accomodating willing readers of
spam is accomodating spammers. period. if they don't like
that, i give them the gate.
adam
the sig-free one
J
Thanks to all who responded. I've SPAMFRIENDed the two main
complainers. One would have received 45 extra pieces this week alone if
they had already been SPAMFRIENDed. I'd love to tell them to find a
spam-friendly provider but we're the only one that many of these users
have access to. Rural Kansas doesn't afford many people a lot of
options. Anyhow, thanks to all that responded.
J
stephen...@spammenot.edu
>I've suspected that it would happen eventually. I was hoping for later
>rather than sooner though. Unfortunately it's happening sooner. I
>filter spam via DNS blacklist and a lengthy spamming domain list in my
>Sendmail access list. Apparently some users think we're now the "email
>police" and they want unfiltered email. What's the best way to give
>this to them without stopping filtering for all users?
I may not understand the technical stuff, but as an observer, I
would think that you could run two mail servers, one which filters,
and one which doesn't. Let the users tell you which group they
want to be part of.
--
Stephen Whitis
Email replies should go to...
scw111400 (at) whitis.com
The address in the header is not valid.
Bill Maloy
> I'm thinking that I could also user
> the SPAMFRIEND definition in my access list for mail matching
> "To:userthatwantsmorespam". I haven't tried this though.
It can significantly increase the load on the mailserver, particularly
during dictionary attacks from sites that would otherwise would have
been rejected during the initial SMTP connection.
> How do other
> places deal with this user problem? I want to filter out the spam for
> everyone unless the request that I don't. Any opinions or past experience?
(a) Ask them if they'd prefer being filtered or to find a new provider.
(b) Put an unfiltered mailserver into production that will forward email
(for certain usernames) to their usual inbox. (For extra credit, give
it an ironic and misleading hostname such as "nospam.example.com",
so that j...@nospam.example.com can receive his email unfiltered).
--
Bill Maloy (brm4)
Tsu Dho Nimh
>See <http://www.mail.rcn.net/external/x-header> for how one ISP deals
>with this.
Doesn't solve the problem:
>>Unfortunately that defeats the purpose of filtering spam in the
>>first place: to save resoureces be it bandwidth, drive space, or
>>processor time. I wouldn't mind doing this tagging for a small number
>>of users, those that request it.
Tsu Dho Nimh
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 06:34 AM, J <use...@linuxnuts.net> said:
>What's the best way to give
>this to them without stopping filtering for all users?
Give them a server on a separate host. Set your rates based on the
additional overhead. Count me out as a customer on that host; I want
aggressive filtering.
>I've seriously
>been thinking about trying to find a way to tag a message (with a
>header tag) that I think is spam but not reject it.
In addition to the issues you mentioned, it doesn't generate a proper
bounce.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
spam...@library.lspace.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 09:19 AM, pig...@fuckyou.co.uk said:
>See <http://www.mail.rcn.net/external/x-header> for how one ISP deals
>with this.
The problems with that are:
1. You don't get proper bounce messages
2. The ISP has to eat the overhead
Alvin Sylvain
> rather than sooner though. Unfortunately it's happening sooner. I
> filter spam via DNS blacklist and a lengthy spamming domain list in my
> Sendmail access list. Apparently some users think we're now the "email
> police" and they want unfiltered email.
You've got people who WANT spam?????
My god, what's this world coming to!
Well, I've read some of the responses, and it looks like you've gotten
your answers. With any luck, after those users have waded through
several screens' worth of unwanted solicitations (many of which aren't
even subject-line safe for kids under 30), they'll come to their
senses and politely request the resumption of your "email police"
efforts!
Good luck!!
:-)
Andrew Gideon
alvin....@excite.com (Alvin Sylvain) writes:
>
> Well, I've read some of the responses, and it looks like you've gotten
> your answers. With any luck, after those users have waded through
> several screens' worth of unwanted solicitations (many of which aren't
> even subject-line safe for kids under 30), they'll come to their
> senses and politely request the resumption of your "email police"
> efforts!
We offer, through the 'spamFriends' solution, a wide level of control
over filtering to our email clients. Some do request unfiltered, but
it rarely lasts for long.
One thing which helps customers choose more aggresive filtering is
the option to add addresses to a whitelist. You may wish to offer
this solution; it may prove better for both you and the client than
leaving filtering completely off.
- Andrew
Jan Krueger
: I've suspected that it would happen eventually. I was hoping for later
: rather than sooner though. Unfortunately it's happening sooner. I
: filter spam via DNS blacklist and a lengthy spamming domain list in my
: Sendmail access list. Apparently some users think we're now the "email
: police" and they want unfiltered email. What's the best way to give
: this to them without stopping filtering for all users? I've seriously
: been thinking about trying to find a way to tag a message (with a header
: tag) that I think is spam but not reject it.
You may want to have a look at
http://www.digitalanswers.org/check_local/
It allows you to fine tune the policy for every recipient or groups of recipients.
I.e. you can add headers for one RBL and reject for another as your customers
like it. It also allows header checking.
As a special feature you can define user+key@... addresses to allow one user
to have multiple spam filter policies.
It should be also possible to let the user define its own policy in a web form.
Best regards.
Jan
--
j...@digitalanswers.de | digitalanswers communications consulting gmbh
www.digitalanswers.de | Lister Meile 33 30161 Hannover Germany
| Fon +49 511 123316-14 Fax +49 511 123316-11
Larry Kilgallen
> rather than sooner though. Unfortunately it's happening sooner. I
> filter spam via DNS blacklist and a lengthy spamming domain list in my
> Sendmail access list. Apparently some users think we're now the "email
> police" and they want unfiltered email. What's the best way to give
> this to them without stopping filtering for all users?
Set up a separate server for those who want spam.
That Funky Chick
muttered something like:
>> I've suspected that it would happen eventually. I was hoping for later
>> rather than sooner though. Unfortunately it's happening sooner. I
>> filter spam via DNS blacklist and a lengthy spamming domain list in my
>> Sendmail access list. Apparently some users think we're now the "email
>> police" and they want unfiltered email. What's the best way to give
>> this to them without stopping filtering for all users?
>
> Set up a separate server for those who want spam.
The "SPAMFRIEND" and "SPAMHATER" rules in Sendmail can accomplish this, as
well. In the .mc file put:
FEATURE(`delay_checks',`friend')dnl
then add users who don't want their mail filtered to the access database
as
us...@somedomain.com SPAMFRIEND
This is a relatively recent Sendmail feature; I know 8.11 has it, not sure
about 8.10, and fairly sure 8.9 does not.
-Bertha
--
There are three rules for writing a novel. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are. -- Somerset Maugham
Ashok Aiyar
That Funky Chick (ber...@yetta.net) wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2002 06:15:25 -0600, Larry Kilgallen <Kilg...@SpamCop.net>
> muttered something like:
>
>>> I've suspected that it would happen eventually. I was hoping for later
>>> rather than sooner though. Unfortunately it's happening sooner. I
>>> filter spam via DNS blacklist and a lengthy spamming domain list in my
>>> Sendmail access list. Apparently some users think we're now the "email
>>> police" and they want unfiltered email. What's the best way to give
>>> this to them without stopping filtering for all users?
>>
>> Set up a separate server for those who want spam.
>
> The "SPAMFRIEND" and "SPAMHATER" rules in Sendmail can accomplish this, as
> well. In the .mc file put:
>
> FEATURE(`delay_checks',`friend')dnl
>
> then add users who don't want their mail filtered to the access database
> as
>
> us...@somedomain.com SPAMFRIEND
>
> This is a relatively recent Sendmail feature; I know 8.11 has it, not sure
> about 8.10, and fairly sure 8.9 does not.
The recommended LHS and RHS in access_db for spamfriend and spamhater
tests are slightly different in 8.12 -- the LHS tag is "Spam:" (instead
of "To:"), and RHS is just "FRIEND" or "HATER".
It is very useful in precisely the type of situation that the original
poster described.
Ashok
--
Ashok Aiyar
RLU #51601
J
>
> On 4 Jan 2002 06:15:25 -0600, Larry Kilgallen <Kilg...@SpamCop.net>
> muttered something like:
>
> >> I've suspected that it would happen eventually. I was hoping for later
> >> rather than sooner though. Unfortunately it's happening sooner. I
> >> filter spam via DNS blacklist and a lengthy spamming domain list in my
> >> Sendmail access list. Apparently some users think we're now the "email
> >> police" and they want unfiltered email. What's the best way to give
> >> this to them without stopping filtering for all users?
> >
> > Set up a separate server for those who want spam.
>
> The "SPAMFRIEND" and "SPAMHATER" rules in Sendmail can accomplish this, as
> well. In the .mc file put:
>
> FEATURE(`delay_checks',`friend')dnl
>
> then add users who don't want their mail filtered to the access database
> as
>
> us...@somedomain.com SPAMFRIEND
>
> This is a relatively recent Sendmail feature; I know 8.11 has it, not sure
> about 8.10, and fairly sure 8.9 does not.
Holy cow! It sure took you a long time to respond. :) I wish Sendmail
could be more granular with it's filtering. Maybe milter will fill in
the gaps.
J
Dark Jedi
> well. In the .mc file put:
>
> FEATURE(`delay_checks',`friend')dnl
>
> then add users who don't want their mail filtered to the access database
> as
>
> us...@somedomain.com SPAMFRIEND
>
> This is a relatively recent Sendmail feature; I know 8.11 has it, not sure
> about 8.10, and fairly sure 8.9 does not.
>
> -Bertha
Bertha, you just saved me a ton of research. I had just started
looking for this exact feature myself. (I want my abuse@,postmaster@,
and a couple others to be unfiltered) Thanks mucho grande!
That Funky Chick
muttered something like:
> Bertha, you just saved me a ton of research. I had just started
> looking for this exact feature myself. (I want my abuse@,postmaster@,
> and a couple others to be unfiltered) Thanks mucho grande!
Glad to help--actually just tickled that I can finally answer a question
here! That's exactly what I've used the feature for myself, making sure
that the admin addresses do not get filtered.
-Bertha
--
Zeal to convert others does not equal sincerity of belief.