![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() In general we will never know it (we get no bounce mail or anything) - If you're not getting a "bounce" there's something wrong with how you're sending the email. Well...actually, that's less true today. I'll explain why. Once upon a time, the blocking tools ran at the server level. That is, the mail server to which your mail server was trying to send the message would reject it. The failed message would still be on your server, and it would be your server's responsibility to send the "bounce". However, users have - justifiably - become concerned about "false positives". So the model has been changing. Instead of servers rejecting email, the mail is now delivered but into a special folder. The user can ignore this folder, scan it occasionally, delete it, or anything in between. Unfortunately, though, this means that the mail was accepted by the destination server. This has a number of problems, but one of them is the lack of an error message. It's tempting for some to blame the users for this, in that they're the proximate cause. However, the blame truly lies with the spammers. W/o them, the problem simply wouldn't exist. [...] Royal pain, and a cure as bad or worse than the disease. It is a pain, but most people disagree with your assessment. They'd rather not be buried in spam. If you need to do some extra work as a result, those people don't care. It's just aother aspect of the cost-shifting nature of spam. The spammers spam, and you pay the cost. That's part of why so many consider it "theft". - Andrew |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Andrew Gideon wrote in
online.com: If you're not getting a "bounce" there's something wrong with how you're sending the email. Well...actually, that's less true today. I'll explain why. That would have been true four or five years ago. Not now. These days VERY FEW of recipient ISP's or major companies bounce blacklisted e:mail. It serves essentially no value except to double the load on the internet. Spammers virtually never have their own "reply to" or "from" address, so any bounce will go to either an invalid address or (these days) more likely to someone whose address was harvested at random. Spam that is not blacklisted but has an invalid recipient address is still universally bounced. We get a few hundred per day of "Your mail could not be delivered..." messages - all for mail we never sent. I have also observed that most users have little idea what filtering (blacklist or otherwise) is automatically imposed by their ISP. Often even the bulk of the people at the ISP may not know. Thus we have the situation where mail is sent... and simply never arrives. Tracking down the point where it disappears can sometimes be a significant hassle. Royal pain, and a cure as bad or worse than the disease. It is a pain, but most people disagree with your assessment. Tell that to my customers who are losing money when documentation packages or other important materials are not arriving... because their ISP is dropping selections of their e:mail without telling either them or the sender. I have absolutely no problem with ISP's providing anti-spam software. But I would say there are two absolutely mandatory requirements: 1) They **must** tell their customers that they are doing it. 2) The customers should be able to "opt out" if necessary to insure the proper receipt of necessary e:mail. [BTW, another interesting problem with one ISP that took us a LONG time to get fixed. That ISP had, among other unpublished anti-spam features, software that would designate as spam anything where a number of users received the same e:mail from the same sender within a short period of time. Unfortunately, the number seemed to be about SIX! Guess what would happen when certain aviation e:newsletters would send out their weekly update! Yup... dropped!!! With no indication to the end user, and not even tech support knew they were doing it.] ----------------------------------------------- James M. Knox TriSoft ph 512-385-0316 1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331 Austin, Tx 78721 ----------------------------------------------- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
("James M. Knox" wrote)
snip I have absolutely no problem with ISP's providing anti-spam software. But I would say there are two absolutely mandatory requirements: 1) They **must** tell their customers that they are doing it. 2) The customers should be able to "opt out" if necessary to insure the proper receipt of necessary e:mail. Our ISP (VISI - Minnesota) started using Postini last spring. http://www.postini.com/ All of our quarantined (spam) messages can be viewed on my ISP's server. I usually just block delete 400 at a time - after a quickie glance to see if I recognize anyone. If I do nothing all week, the spam automatically falls off the back end, to make room for "fresh spam". Messages with a virus are highlighted - I've seen about 10 of those in the past 8 months. I can select different levels of protection - very easy options to use ..."beginner level intuitive". I can rescue addresses trapped in our spam filter with a click. It's actually about 3 clicks (and a Paste) which is something I'd streamline if I was Postini. Overall, we're quite pleased with the job they're doing. They're not 100% infallible ...but post-Postini, the situation is 100% better than it was. -- Montblack http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Montblack" wrote in
: Our ISP (VISI - Minnesota) started using Postini last spring. http://www.postini.com/ All of our quarantined (spam) messages can be viewed on my ISP's server. I usually just block delete 400 at a time - after a quickie glance to see if I recognize anyone. Postini does a pretty good job, although I like Britemail a bit better (virtually zero false positive rate, at the cost of letting a few more spams through). I monitor what our system here classes as spam, and it varies a bit from week to week. Right now I am showing just over 17,000 from last night. Just a few months ago it would have been more like 3000. Needless to say, I don't check for false positives, which is why I'd rather let a few spam get through than not. ----------------------------------------------- James M. Knox TriSoft ph 512-385-0316 1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331 Austin, Tx 78721 ----------------------------------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|