[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On 16 Sep 2005, at 11:05, Mark Montague wrote:
What I'm talking about is full DSPAM filtering for UMOD groups,
just like we have now for ITCS IMAP mailboxes. In fact -- and
I've had this discussion with Wes before -- I believe that putting
DSPAM on the ITCS IMAP servers was not what should have been done.
ITCS Directors decided to deploy DSPAM only on the IMAP servers.
Personally, I don't disagree with this decision, as it improved the
SPAM situation for a portion of the population, while limiting the
scope of potential negative impacts. I think that most IT Managers
on campus also agreed with the decision, especially given that the
Anti-SPAM WG was supposed to deliver a decision immanently.
Without rewriting history, a new decision might be made today. DSPAM
works very well in our deployment. A much larger user community has
sprung up around DSPAM. There are some clear needs that aren't being
met solutions deployed on campus. However, there are still groups
that might disagree with moving DSPAM to the gateway, and their
opinions must also be considered.
Lack of DSPAM (or a comparable solution) on the UMich mail
gateways has been a huge problem for FootPrints on campus.
Lots of computer-related and non-computer-related projects
(for example, the Campus Information Centers) are getting
over 100 spam a day, each, that are the same messages that
routinely get filtered into SpamBox on the ITCS IMAP servers.
Putting DSPAM (or a comparable filter) on the gateway will not
completely solve this problem. As long as the FootPrints server
accepts mail from off-campus, it will get unfiltered SPAM.
Keep in mind this is NOT a FootPrints-specific problem: it
affects regular UMOD groups, listserves on campus, and much more.
I've fielded a complaint just yesterday about the unix-admins mailing
list (which is not a listserve, just a regalar UMOD group) about
the amount of spam the group receives.
I might suggest making unix-admins members-only.