10/03/2003: Hsphere - SpamAssassin

SpamAssassin is currently disabled due to some issues its causing on the machines. We are investigating the matter and will be enabling SpamAssassin as soon as we fix the problem. In the meantime, please respond to the poll about Tagging messages.

[somereseller]

The way it was working before was saving you some bandwidth, no?

Yes, but rather than silently removing messages, I am going to attempt to block them at SMTP level, which means you will receive a message when you attempt to send spam, or in the case of spammers, they will be rejected. If a legimiate mail gets detected wrong, then the user should receive a bounce and we can adjust our filters accordingly.

[jmbeach]

I installed SAProxy just a couple of days ago, and I really like the added flexibility of dumping spam according to my needs.

I'd say tagging the subject line is a good step to allow recipients to decide what is, and what isn't, spam - and at a quick glance.

I would only suggest you also set it to rewrite the original message using plain text to counter any logging that these spammers may be doing with hidden images and the like.

Oh, and I would really like if you continue to block executables, or at least package them so that users understand what they are.

Nice work guys!

SpamAssassin has been reenable with Subject Tagging, if the poll shows otherwise in another few days, subject tagging will be removed, but currently the poll is far in favor...

[antic]

Question... if someone (like me) writes an application for a client which they use to send emails to their customers, will your system pick this up as outgoing spam?

Should I "register" my application with you so that these emails will be let through?

Cheers

SpamAssassin uses many tests to score a message. You can view the tests at http://spamassassin.org and see if your application would pass many tests. Chances are, if it passes the tests, it is spam...

[Brangwyn]

Personally I don't mind subject tagging, but I'd prefer something a little less "loud" than ****SPAM**** on my servers I usually use just "[SPAM]"

[jmbeach]

answer this, though...

If I'm using a local script - say on the windows server - and using it's SMTP server to send to a mailing list, this bypasses Spam Assassin, correct?

I'd hate for any of my customers mailing lists (although meager) to get tagged at all, considering they're opt-in lists, and not just junk lists.

None of the web servers, unix or windows, are running any kind of filter for their outbound mail. Any filters encountered will be on the receiving MTA.

[mresell]

Originally posted by Brangwyn
Personally I don't mind subject tagging, but I'd prefer something a little less "loud" than *******SPAM****** on my servers I usually use just "[SPAM]"

Same here. Too many asterics.

[mresell]

The asterics are confusing if you do filtering and want to include wildcards.

[somereseller]

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*SPAM\*\*\*\*\*\*\* =)

AdminS, this is the only way it's going to work from now on? I want to know if I have to tell my customers that the way we handle spam has changed once again.

[Brangwyn]

It will be either X-SPAM header or X-SPAM Header + Subject tagging as I understand it, so if you've told them about headers already then it shouldn't be a big deal really

I wanted a (bloody) Viking chorus singing "wonderful spaaaam" but they couldn't figure out how to put a wav file in the subject line.

The pesky asterisks probably ought to be replaced, they do screw with client-side filters. Regexp filters might hate square brackets too.