From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 25 18:00:26 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E76BE106566C for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 18:00:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from martes@mgwigglesworth.com) Received: from mail.mgwigglesworth.com (mail.mgwigglesworth.net [75.146.26.81]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C0A8FC14 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 18:00:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from martes@mgwigglesworth.com) To: Gary Palmer Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:59:48 -0400 References: <1240615371.6029.34.camel@localhost> <20090425022227.GB79909@in-addr.com> Message-ID: <0000054941@mail.mgwigglesworth.com> From: "martes" Organization: MGW Networks MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: WebCit 7.37 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Spamassassin anyone??? X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 18:00:27 -0000 Sorry if this seems like a blinded assumption, however, whenever someone=20= asks about the origin of explicit spam, such as the anti-semetic stuff that wa= s posting to the list from an obviously mangled header source, someone alwa= ys brings up that the lists are not proctared, as if there is not any manage= ment at all, and such obvious garbage is just going to post due to lack of supervision, or spam protocals... =20 Thanks for the reply. >Fri Apr 24 2009 22:22:27 EDT from Gary Palmer to Martes Wigglesworth =20 >Subject: Re: Spamassassin anyone??? > >On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 07:22:51PM -0400, Martes Wigglesworth wrote: > >>> Greetings list. >>> >>> I was just wondering, why don't they just run spamassassin on the >>> freebsd lists servers????? I would cut down on spam, and I doubt wou= ld >>> be any overhead if it were simply updated. >> > >As far as I am aware, they do run SpamAssassin on the listserv box. >And also as far as I'm aware, if they were NOT running SA, you'd >likely see upwards of a hundred spam messages a day getting through. > >Note that no A/S technology has a 100% catch rate, and as the volume >of spam goes up, the volume of false negatives must also go up >and hence you're seeing more spam. Its just the current round in >the never-ending war against spam. > >Regards, > >Gary > >