Re: SPAM sudden increase
- From: "-=Biscuit=-" <mara@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:48:55 -0800
"[_ '] |_| (_] ]_ |_| (_]" <cthulhu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> delighted us to
no end by taking a lime green crayon and scribbling in
news:pan.2005.12.03.20.02.40.135400@xxxxxxxxxxxx, on the hallowed
day of Sat 03 Dec 2005 12:02:40p:
Damn you write a lot....lol
> "] |_| (_] _['' _['' ]-" /_\ |/_ [. -=Biscuit=-:
>
>
>> Could you let me know what you think after you've tested it
>> out a while? I don't mind paying money, but I need something
>> that does what it's suppose to do. SA seems to require a lot
>> of tweaking.
>
> I'm sure I could trap more spam if I wrote custom rules for SA.
I didn't change anything, and yet suddenly it seems to be trapping
at the same level it did before. I'm afraid to touch it now!
> I suppose this would work best if your .org, .com, or whatever
> is a uniform organization - like the furniture shop example
> they give in the cfg docs. If you don't expect home refinancing
> messages to be relevant, they are easy to filter. If, on the
> other hand, you are serving as an ISP for random people or
> organizations, it would be more difficult to write effective
> rules.
I would be in the ISP category. I have a hosting company, and need
to write rules for various different types of businesses.
>
> For me, it is the time needed to check for FPs that kills
> SA. I have a bunch of users internally that deal with an even
> larger bunch of people externally, about a range of subjects
> (that technically should be pretty well defined, but, as fate
> would have it, isn't). In a smaller organization, it would be
> much more usable.
>
> Also, these people have no sense of etiquette, and are
> sometimes impractical. I mean, how is SA supposed to interpret
> an inbound message with a single document attached, but without
> a body or subject?
d00d. I have customers who DON'T KNOW WHAT A FREAKIN *URL* IS!!!
I had one guy who said "he couldn't find the link to pay his bill."
He replied to the email WITH THE FREAKIN LINK/URL *IN* IT!!!
I have to retrieve these all the time. How
> am I supposed to train SA on these messages? I know - I know -
> I can whitelist them. Screw that - I am not going to whitelist
> the home addresses of 850 people that are too busy to write a
> real message or use a memory stick.
Why? You got nothing better to do!
*ducks*
'Sides, they can bypass SA
> completely by using our webmail, since they are just mailing to
> themselves...
>
> Hey, isn't that a Billy Idol song?
>
> //--------------------------------
>
> On the floor of Tokyo
> Or down in London town to go, go
> With the record selection
> With the mirror reflection
> I'm mailing to myself
>
> When there's no-one else in sight
> In the crowded lonely night
> Well I wait so long
> For my love vibration
> And I'm mailing to myself
>
> ...
>
> //--------------------------------
*ahem*
Normally...that would annoy me. But honestly? I like your format. I
woulda used *****, but other than that...it works.
> Dude was on a tech call with f-secure and the tech asked, "So,
> are you familiar with SSH?" To which the dude replied, "Yes."
> (Even though he barely has a clue.) The tech said. "Good,
> because our FTP server is secure [uses secure
> authentication/something like that/basically implying sftp].
> I'll go ahead and send you the login information.
>
> So later, dude is trying to FTP to their server using WSFTP. I
> said, "Oh, I think you need to use sftp." To which the dude
> replied, "Yeah, I'm using WSFTP." To which I replied, "Uhhh,
> yeah, but I think he is talking about sftp protocol - FTP via
> SSH, for which you might use the psftp client instead." To
> which he replied, "Oh."
FileZilla r0cks for SFTP.
[...]
> So, er, yeah - I'll post something here about Lightspeed.
> Getting ready to make the change. I will be sad though...
>
> Just FYI. Lightspeed runs on Windows 2000.
Ewwww. Just ewwwww. I don't do Windows servers.
>>>>> Yeah - Monday is gonna suck...
>>>>
>>>> Ummmm yeah...
>>>
>>> and Tuesday, and Wednesday, and Thursday too
>>>
>>> woo hoo!
Well, back to SA. Apparently the "recent" upgrade to 3.1.0 was
quite a jump.
--
-=Mara=-If stupidity was painful, The Rocky Mountains would be full
of screams.
.
- References:
- Re: SPAM sudden increase
- From: [_ '] |_| (_] ]_ |_| (_]
- Re: SPAM sudden increase
- From: -=Biscuit=-
- Re: SPAM sudden increase
- From: [_ '] |_| (_] ]_ |_| (_]
- Re: SPAM sudden increase
- Prev by Date: fsdg
- Next by Date: Re: fsdg
- Previous by thread: Re: SPAM sudden increase
- Next by thread: Re: SPAM sudden increase
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
