Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-spamassassin-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-spamassassin-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B88FA11183 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 21:00:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 60713 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2014 21:00:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-spamassassin-users-archive@spamassassin.apache.org Received: (qmail 60679 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2014 21:00:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@spamassassin.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@spamassassin.apache.org Received: (qmail 60664 invoked by uid 99); 1 Jul 2014 21:00:44 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 21:00:44 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of motty.cruz@gmail.com designates 209.85.223.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.223.176] (HELO mail-ie0-f176.google.com) (209.85.223.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 21:00:39 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id rd18so8645691iec.21 for ; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 14:00:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SzuWww7e4P6PQdTrNbBLL/Wfb+VGeZ4Lg41OVfb9U1o=; b=l5NLgJ1PDG1E5zMbufARMXEa3/xpXLXY7w7ujKXrdVCXqFKb+9RL7uQ+cKgyV992PF /1U7ffToARasqP12ef7kitmHiaN38axAKniO5r78GgX7vu5bbD4iOIeT847UvLEP9/k1 v3SnxjIhFLTrofFzbk8d1c37VgYPg4BW3+YJW9PQH86P477lB9KzXtRaQ001JV26YHHG PUO29kT8CRAHgScybYEzqtwCZEVaruSOzpYQFsEz3OWTz4n39odIPeKLCC4A1UfEbt6+ mYgR5lzRyiN1rtMj52JwFIXIS0wJSxioku8oDsDA8u+l2OsjzZTIo35sarrEpkjqnGIS K9tQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.50.197 with SMTP id e5mr43698253igo.46.1404248418577; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 14:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.249.16 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 14:00:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53B31C15.7040803@gmail.com> References: <53B306A6.1010809@gmail.com> <293F0A25-1A6E-4466-B4AB-0EC110767716@fluxlabs.net> <1404246545.6308.161.camel@zappa.gregorie.lan> <53B31C15.7040803@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 14:00:18 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: getting tons of SPAM From: motty cruz To: Steve Bergman Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd756702a932504fd2810d4 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7bd756702a932504fd2810d4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 yes I guest I could change the variable delay, I will do a quick search to see how would affect users. some users are very sensitive to this issues. Thanks a bunch, On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Steve Bergman wrote: > > > On 07/01/2014 03:29 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote: > >> On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 19:17 +0000, Jeremy McSpadden wrote: >> >>> No mention of RBLs or greylisting ... >>> >>> Quite. >> >> When my ISP switched on greylisting my mail immediately went from a >> spam:ham ratio of 80:20 to one of 20:80 >> > > But the variable delay, which is not under your control? My users > complained loudly about that minority of mails which took an hour to > arrive. I had to turn it off. Yes, I'm sure the autowhitelist features help > with time. But we're always receiving mail from new customers whom our mail > server has never heard from before. And you really don't want to not > receive a mail from a new customer for an hour or more when you are a > service company advertising fast and efficient service of your customers' > restaurant kitchen equipment during the lunch hours. > > I did not find greylisting viable for our use case. And I suspect many > businesses would have similar incompatibilities with the strategy. > > -Steve > --047d7bd756702a932504fd2810d4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
yes I guest I could change the variable delay, I will do a= quick search to see how would affect users. some users are very sensitive = to this issues.=C2=A0

Thanks a bunch,=C2=A0


On Tue, Jul 1= , 2014 at 1:37 PM, Steve Bergman <sbergman27@gmail.com> w= rote:


On 07/01/2014 03:29 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 19:17 +0000, Jeremy McSpadden wrote:
No mention of RBLs or greylisting ...

Quite.

When my ISP switched on greylisting my mail immediately went from a
spam:ham ratio of 80:20 to one of 20:80

But the variable delay, which is not under your control? My users complaine= d loudly about that minority of mails which took an hour to arrive. I had t= o turn it off. Yes, I'm sure the autowhitelist features help with time.= But we're always receiving mail from new customers whom our mail serve= r has never heard from before. And you really don't want to not receive= a mail from a new customer for an hour or more when you are a service comp= any advertising fast and efficient service of your customers' restauran= t kitchen equipment during the lunch hours.

I did not find greylisting viable for our use case. And I suspect many busi= nesses would have similar incompatibilities with the strategy.

-Steve

--047d7bd756702a932504fd2810d4--