|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Lucio ChiappettiLucio Chiappetti
Date: Jan 30, 2008 01:12
> From: Jo Rhett netconsonance.com>
> Subject: [AMaViS-user] how many people really use the quarantine?
>
> I'm curious, how many people really use amavisd to quarantine messages?
We do systematically at our site. We quarantine both viruses (we don't
receive many) and spam (Spamassassin spam amounts currently to about 40%%
of our incoming traffic, 35%% are good mail, and the rest is spam rejected
by other means ; the spam rate used to be even higher when we started,
it decreased when we abandoned our former domain). We quarantine in a
single daily folder (not per user) on both our incoming servers, and
rotate the folders for a week.
We have a crontab which lists the subject and origin of quarantined
messages and send a single mail per day to each user who has received
spam, so he can apply to the system manager to recover an eventual false
positive.
As far as I know the rate of false positives is extremely low, one in
several months.
> And why is this better than tagging the messages and sorting them
> into the Junk folder of the recipient?
|
| Show full article (2.35Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Peter OlssonPeter Olsson
Date: Jan 30, 2008 00:27
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 03:42:00PM -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
>> Because 99%% of the time, end-users are complete morons who couldn't
>> find their own butts with both hands, a funnel, and a roadmap. The
>> vast majority of them can't handle sorting based on tagging criteria.
>
> This is why I am curious. Trying to get users to log into a
> different system to check the quarantine has never yielded good
> results in my mind. Sorting it into a folder they can check on their
> mail client of choice always seems to work, they understand it, etc.
>
> That's why I question the value of server-side quarantine.
>
>> If amavisd's quarantining code is removed for any reason, I'll
>> have to write a replacement myself, because I won't run a mail
>> server without that functionality.
>
> I'm not proposing that, although I personally wouldn't mind it. I'm
> going to take over/fork a SQL-db editing tool, and am tempting to
> drop all support for quarantine in that. ...
|
| Show full article (2.71Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Jo RhettJo Rhett
Date: Jan 29, 2008 23:58
Lennard Bakker wrote:
> For most users i don't want to tag there email because they don't
> understand filtering options of there email client. They just want to
> read there expected email with the default client config.
Yeah, we do the move to Junk folder as a global script for all users.
> So i quarantine all messages and users get a daily report with the
> 'spammy' messages. With a single click they can release the messages
> from quarantine.
Single click? Do you have a single sign-on system? Or are the
quarantined messages available to anyone, no authentication?
> And for more experient users, they can change there own settings on a
> website and get tagged messages at there own chosen spam level and other
> spamassassin configuration settings ;)
What UI are you using to manage that?
|
| Show full article (1.29Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Jo RhettJo Rhett
Date: Jan 29, 2008 23:56
Dave McGuire wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
>>> Because 99%% of the time, end-users are complete morons who couldn't
>>> find their own butts with both hands, a funnel, and a roadmap. The
>>> vast majority of them can't handle sorting based on tagging criteria.
>>
>> This is why I am curious. Trying to get users to log into a different
>> system to check the quarantine has never yielded good results in my
>> mind. Sorting it into a folder they can check on their mail client of
>> choice always seems to work, they understand it, etc.
>>
>> That's why I question the value of server-side quarantine.
>
> In my situation, I don't control (or even have access to) end users'
> machines. This is an ISP environment. These people don't know *how* to
> check a folder...
|
| Show full article (2.16Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Lennard BakkerLennard Bakker
Date: Jan 29, 2008 23:29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jo Rhett wrote:
| I'm curious, how many people really use amavisd to quarantine messages?
|
| And why is this better than tagging the messages and sorting them
| into the Junk folder of the recipient?
|
| I'm honestly curious, because there is a metric ton of code involved
| in the quarantine process, and I'm really not sure why server-side
| quarantine is better in any useful way.
|
| Please educate me.
I quarantine all messages.
For most users i don't want to tag there email because they don't
understand filtering options of there email client. They just want to
read there expected email with the default client config.
|
| Show full article (1.77Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Dave McGuireDave McGuire
Date: Jan 29, 2008 23:13
On Jan 29, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
>> Because 99%% of the time, end-users are complete morons who
>> couldn't find their own butts with both hands, a funnel, and a
>> roadmap. The vast majority of them can't handle sorting based on
>> tagging criteria.
>
> This is why I am curious. Trying to get users to log into a
> different system to check the quarantine has never yielded good
> results in my mind. Sorting it into a folder they can check on
> their mail client of choice always seems to work, they understand
> it, etc.
>
> That's why I question the value of server-side quarantine.
In my situation, I don't control (or even have access to) end
users' machines. This is an ISP environment. These people don't
know *how* to check a folder on their mail client, and for my
organization to ask them to do so would be too much for most of these
people.
|
| Show full article (2.01Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Eray AslanEray Aslan
Date: Jan 29, 2008 17:03
On 30.01.2008 01:42, Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
>> Because 99%% of the time, end-users are complete morons who couldn't
>> find their own butts with both hands, a funnel, and a roadmap. The
>> vast majority of them can't handle sorting based on tagging criteria.
>
> This is why I am curious. Trying to get users to log into a
> different system to check the quarantine has never yielded good
> results in my mind. Sorting it into a folder they can check on their
> mail client of choice always seems to work, they understand it, etc.
>
> That's why I question the value of server-side quarantine.
Same experience here. Quarantine at the server side resulted in too
many support calls and did not really work. Too complicated for my
client base. We just tag and deliver now and let the user decide what
to do - with a web site that explains how to sort spam into the Junk folder.
But somebody might find it useful. It just does not work for my case.
--
Eray
|
| Show full article (1.50Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Giampaolo TomassoniGiampaolo Tomassoni
Date: Jan 29, 2008 16:00
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amavis-user-bounces@ lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:amavis-user-
> bounces@ lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Jo Rhett
>
> I'm curious, how many people really use amavisd to quarantine messages?
>
> And why is this better than tagging the messages and sorting them
> into the Junk folder of the recipient?
>
> I'm honestly curious, because there is a metric ton of code involved
> in the quarantine process, and I'm really not sure why server-side
> quarantine is better in any useful way.
>
> Please educate me.
My setup, like your, put spam in the mailbox junk folder.
|
| Show full article (2.15Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
