On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Timothy Murphy <gayleard at alice.it> wrote: > David Beveridge wrote: > > >> I'm happy to leave the definition of spam to spamassassin, > >> and leave Mr Bayes to do my thinking for me. > > And therein lies the problem. > > Unfortunately spamassassin is not really the best way to stop spam. > > You need more. > > Speak for yourself. > I do > Spamassasin does a pretty good job for me. > Postfix is incredibly configurable and where it's warranted, many filters can be brought to bear. If you don't need them good for you. > > Spamassassin should just be a tool in the toolkit not the entire > solution. > > It is CPU and bandwidth intensive. > > I get about 300 emails a day on my small system, > of which about 150 are spam, as defined by SA. > I don't think this is likely to burn out my (ancient) CPU. > Precisely why it is difficult to come up with a one-size fits all solution. > > > A large proportion of spam can and should be rejected, before the body of > > the email is received. > > I'm sure if and when such a system becomes available > RedHat and CentOS will implement it, > and I shall take advanage of their expertise. > such systems are available. eg policyd-weight As mentioned earlier on this thread. > > I assume you are speaking of a system with hundreds or thousands of users. > (Do such systems still exist? I thought they had died out.) > I have 4 users. > Our needs are very different. > > Yes, my server handles email for hundreds of uses, and you're right about that, is was thousands. google uses postfix too and I'm sure they're in the millions of users. > Incidentally, I get email from sources who filter out spam, eg my college, > and they don't seem to do a much better job than SA. > I'm still invited to marry beautiful ladies from Russia. > > Why would your college sysadmin be an expert at spam prevention?