Has anybody tried greylisting as a spam deterent on a 150,000 a dayemail server?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thing, Feb 2, 2005.

  1. thing

    thing Guest

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Feb 2, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. thing

    Steve Guest

    Re: Has anybody tried greylisting as a spam deterent on a 150,000a day email server?

    thing wrote:
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >

    I may have the perfect solution for you... see mailwasher.sf.net for
    more details. If we don't support your platform, then we'll do our best
    to change that.

    .... and we're Chch based :)

    Steve
     
    Steve, Feb 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Re: Has anybody tried greylisting as a spam deterent on a 150,000a day email server?

    Steve wrote:
    > thing wrote:
    >
    >> regards
    >>
    >> Thing
    >>

    > I may have the perfect solution for you... see mailwasher.sf.net for
    > more details. If we don't support your platform, then we'll do our best
    > to change that.
    >
    > ... and we're Chch based :)


    I didn't see anything about greylisting on your site.

    150,000 e-mails is not a heavy load, comodity hardware can easily cope
    with that on a daily basis, even running a large anti-spam ruleset full
    of regular expressions. Grey listing would redude the CPU load further
    at the expense of some wasted network usage. Personally I would prefer
    to have a bit of spam which I can delete immediately than to have my
    mail delayed.

    The Other Guy
     
    The Other Guy, Feb 3, 2005
    #3
  4. thing

    Steve Guest

    Re: Has anybody tried greylisting as a spam deterent on a 150,000a day email server?

    The Other Guy wrote:
    > Steve wrote:
    >
    >> thing wrote:
    >>
    >>> regards
    >>>
    >>> Thing
    >>>

    >> I may have the perfect solution for you... see mailwasher.sf.net for
    >> more details. If we don't support your platform, then we'll do our
    >> best to change that.
    >>
    >> ... and we're Chch based :)

    >
    >
    > I didn't see anything about greylisting on your site.
    >
    > 150,000 e-mails is not a heavy load, comodity hardware can easily cope
    > with that on a daily basis, even running a large anti-spam ruleset full
    > of regular expressions. Grey listing would redude the CPU load further
    > at the expense of some wasted network usage. Personally I would prefer
    > to have a bit of spam which I can delete immediately than to have my
    > mail delayed.
    >
    > The Other Guy

    The problem with greylisting is that the method is well publicised, and
    all 'decent' spammers circumvent it. We think that using real people is
    a far better approach, and we use far more information to identify an
    email than the three bits used in this method.

    We offer the option to quarantine email - no delay, it's just made
    available through a separate interface.

    As for loading... well, that's a fairly heavily loaded Exchange server
    you're talking about there, but a P4 on linux / sendmail or similar can,
    as you say, easily handle any amount of post-processing at those loads.
    We were benchmarking at many millions per day,

    I know this sounds like a sales pitch, but in my defence, it is Open
    Source :)

    Steve.
    PS. Isn't it great to be able to spell grey properly :)
     
    Steve, Feb 3, 2005
    #4
  5. thing

    thing Guest

    Re: Has anybody tried greylisting as a spam deterent on a 150,000aday email server?

    Steve wrote:
    > The Other Guy wrote:
    >
    >> Steve wrote:
    >>
    >>> thing wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> regards
    >>>>
    >>>> Thing
    >>>>
    >>> I may have the perfect solution for you... see mailwasher.sf.net for
    >>> more details. If we don't support your platform, then we'll do our
    >>> best to change that.
    >>>
    >>> ... and we're Chch based :)

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I didn't see anything about greylisting on your site.
    >>
    >> 150,000 e-mails is not a heavy load, comodity hardware can easily cope
    >> with that on a daily basis, even running a large anti-spam ruleset
    >> full of regular expressions. Grey listing would redude the CPU load
    >> further at the expense of some wasted network usage. Personally I
    >> would prefer to have a bit of spam which I can delete immediately than
    >> to have my mail delayed.
    >>
    >> The Other Guy

    >
    > The problem with greylisting is that the method is well publicised, and
    > all 'decent' spammers circumvent it. We think that using real people is
    > a far better approach, and we use far more information to identify an
    > email than the three bits used in this method.
    >
    > We offer the option to quarantine email - no delay, it's just made
    > available through a separate interface.
    >
    > As for loading... well, that's a fairly heavily loaded Exchange server
    > you're talking about there, but a P4 on linux / sendmail or similar can,
    > as you say, easily handle any amount of post-processing at those loads.
    > We were benchmarking at many millions per day,
    >
    > I know this sounds like a sales pitch, but in my defence, it is Open
    > Source :)
    >
    > Steve.
    > PS. Isn't it great to be able to spell grey properly :)


    We already have Sophos's mail solution, however it is not working to
    well and Sophos are being of little help....we are considering going
    back to spam assassin and add grey listing we usually stopped 95% just
    with spamassassin.

    The box is a Dell 2850 with 4 gig of ram and their are implying we go to
    16 gig of ram when the older 2650 box coped on 4 gig.....thats some
    dollars to add on an already expensive solution.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Feb 3, 2005
    #5
  6. thing

    thing Guest

    Re: Has anybody tried greylisting as a spam deterent on a 150,000adayemail server?

    thing wrote:
    > Steve wrote:
    >
    >> The Other Guy wrote:
    >>
    >>> Steve wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> thing wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> regards
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thing
    >>>>>
    >>>> I may have the perfect solution for you... see mailwasher.sf.net for
    >>>> more details. If we don't support your platform, then we'll do our
    >>>> best to change that.
    >>>>
    >>>> ... and we're Chch based :)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I didn't see anything about greylisting on your site.
    >>>
    >>> 150,000 e-mails is not a heavy load, comodity hardware can easily
    >>> cope with that on a daily basis, even running a large anti-spam
    >>> ruleset full of regular expressions. Grey listing would redude the
    >>> CPU load further at the expense of some wasted network usage.
    >>> Personally I would prefer to have a bit of spam which I can delete
    >>> immediately than to have my mail delayed.
    >>>
    >>> The Other Guy

    >>
    >>
    >> The problem with greylisting is that the method is well publicised,
    >> and all 'decent' spammers circumvent it. We think that using real
    >> people is a far better approach, and we use far more information to
    >> identify an email than the three bits used in this method.
    >>
    >> We offer the option to quarantine email - no delay, it's just made
    >> available through a separate interface.
    >>
    >> As for loading... well, that's a fairly heavily loaded Exchange server
    >> you're talking about there, but a P4 on linux / sendmail or similar
    >> can, as you say, easily handle any amount of post-processing at those
    >> loads. We were benchmarking at many millions per day,
    >>
    >> I know this sounds like a sales pitch, but in my defence, it is Open
    >> Source :)
    >>
    >> Steve.
    >> PS. Isn't it great to be able to spell grey properly :)

    >
    >
    > We already have Sophos's mail solution, however it is not working to
    > well and Sophos are being of little help....we are considering going
    > back to spam assassin and add grey listing we usually stopped 95% just
    > with spamassassin.
    >
    > The box is a Dell 2850 with 4 gig of ram and their are implying we go to
    > 16 gig of ram when the older 2650 box coped on 4 gig.....thats some
    > dollars to add on an already expensive solution.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing


    What you have is very similar in concept to Sophos, sendmail, postgres
    with a web gui front end.

    If we cannot resolve Sophos's issue we will look at it.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Feb 3, 2005
    #6
  7. Re: Has anybody tried greylisting as a spam deterent on a 150,000aday email server?

    thing wrote:
    > The box is a Dell 2850 with 4 gig of ram and their are implying we go to
    > 16 gig of ram when the older 2650 box coped on 4 gig.....thats some
    > dollars to add on an already expensive solution.


    to quote from an annoying Aussie movie...
    "tell them they're dreaming."
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Feb 3, 2005
    #7
  8. thing

    thing Guest

    Re: Has anybody tried greylisting as a spam deterent on a 150,000adayemail server?

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > thing wrote:
    >
    >> The box is a Dell 2850 with 4 gig of ram and their are implying we go
    >> to 16 gig of ram when the older 2650 box coped on 4 gig.....thats some
    >> dollars to add on an already expensive solution.

    >
    >
    > to quote from an annoying Aussie movie...
    > "tell them they're dreaming."


    Trouble is Politics....its been bought, for a 5 figure sum......

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Feb 3, 2005
    #8
  9. thing

    thing Guest

    Re: Has anybody tried greylisting as a spam deterent on a 150,000adayemailserver?

    thing wrote:
    > Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >
    >> thing wrote:
    >>
    >>> The box is a Dell 2850 with 4 gig of ram and their are implying we go
    >>> to 16 gig of ram when the older 2650 box coped on 4 gig.....thats
    >>> some dollars to add on an already expensive solution.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> to quote from an annoying Aussie movie...
    >> "tell them they're dreaming."

    >
    >
    > Trouble is Politics....its been bought, for a 5 figure sum......
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >


    and its been dumped on me....and there is a risk it is going to fall
    over big time....

    so Im p*ssed...

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Feb 3, 2005
    #9
  10. thing

    T-Boy Guest

    Re: Has anybody tried greylisting as a spam deterent on a 150,000aday email server?

    In article <420266f3$>, says...
    > Steve wrote:
    > > The Other Guy wrote:
    > >
    > >> Steve wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> thing wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> regards
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Thing
    > >>>>
    > >>> I may have the perfect solution for you... see mailwasher.sf.net for
    > >>> more details. If we don't support your platform, then we'll do our
    > >>> best to change that.
    > >>>
    > >>> ... and we're Chch based :)
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> I didn't see anything about greylisting on your site.
    > >>
    > >> 150,000 e-mails is not a heavy load, comodity hardware can easily cope
    > >> with that on a daily basis, even running a large anti-spam ruleset
    > >> full of regular expressions. Grey listing would redude the CPU load
    > >> further at the expense of some wasted network usage. Personally I
    > >> would prefer to have a bit of spam which I can delete immediately than
    > >> to have my mail delayed.
    > >>
    > >> The Other Guy

    > >
    > > The problem with greylisting is that the method is well publicised, and
    > > all 'decent' spammers circumvent it. We think that using real people is
    > > a far better approach, and we use far more information to identify an
    > > email than the three bits used in this method.
    > >
    > > We offer the option to quarantine email - no delay, it's just made
    > > available through a separate interface.
    > >
    > > As for loading... well, that's a fairly heavily loaded Exchange server
    > > you're talking about there, but a P4 on linux / sendmail or similar can,
    > > as you say, easily handle any amount of post-processing at those loads.
    > > We were benchmarking at many millions per day,
    > >
    > > I know this sounds like a sales pitch, but in my defence, it is Open
    > > Source :)
    > >
    > > Steve.
    > > PS. Isn't it great to be able to spell grey properly :)

    >
    > We already have Sophos's mail solution, however it is not working to
    > well and Sophos are being of little help....we are considering going
    > back to spam assassin and add grey listing we usually stopped 95% just
    > with spamassassin.


    I'm very surprised to hear that. I've found Sophos to provide
    *excellent* service. Do you talk to to the Aussie support desk? In the
    past I've logged calls to them twice and they've answered promptly and
    phoned me back with a technician who has sorted problems immediately.

    I've also found their antivirus solution to be excellent - for email and
    workstation protection.

    --
    Duncan
     
    T-Boy, Feb 3, 2005
    #10
  11. thing

    thing Guest

    Re: Has anybody tried greylisting as a spam deterent on a 150,000adayemail server?

    T-Boy wrote:
    > In article <420266f3$>, says...
    >
    >>Steve wrote:
    >>
    >>>The Other Guy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Steve wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>thing wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>regards
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Thing
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>I may have the perfect solution for you... see mailwasher.sf.net for
    >>>>>more details. If we don't support your platform, then we'll do our
    >>>>>best to change that.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>... and we're Chch based :)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>I didn't see anything about greylisting on your site.
    >>>>
    >>>>150,000 e-mails is not a heavy load, comodity hardware can easily cope
    >>>>with that on a daily basis, even running a large anti-spam ruleset
    >>>>full of regular expressions. Grey listing would redude the CPU load
    >>>>further at the expense of some wasted network usage. Personally I
    >>>>would prefer to have a bit of spam which I can delete immediately than
    >>>>to have my mail delayed.
    >>>>
    >>>>The Other Guy
    >>>
    >>>The problem with greylisting is that the method is well publicised, and
    >>>all 'decent' spammers circumvent it. We think that using real people is
    >>>a far better approach, and we use far more information to identify an
    >>>email than the three bits used in this method.
    >>>
    >>>We offer the option to quarantine email - no delay, it's just made
    >>>available through a separate interface.
    >>>
    >>>As for loading... well, that's a fairly heavily loaded Exchange server
    >>>you're talking about there, but a P4 on linux / sendmail or similar can,
    >>>as you say, easily handle any amount of post-processing at those loads.
    >>>We were benchmarking at many millions per day,
    >>>
    >>>I know this sounds like a sales pitch, but in my defence, it is Open
    >>>Source :)
    >>>
    >>>Steve.
    >>>PS. Isn't it great to be able to spell grey properly :)

    >>
    >>We already have Sophos's mail solution, however it is not working to
    >>well and Sophos are being of little help....we are considering going
    >>back to spam assassin and add grey listing we usually stopped 95% just
    >>with spamassassin.

    >
    >
    > I'm very surprised to hear that. I've found Sophos to provide
    > *excellent* service. Do you talk to to the Aussie support desk? In the
    > past I've logged calls to them twice and they've answered promptly and
    > phoned me back with a technician who has sorted problems immediately.
    >
    > I've also found their antivirus solution to be excellent - for email and
    > workstation protection.
    >


    This is their anti-spam engine and not anti-virus (or do you mean
    anti-spam as well?).....while the help-desk have been very helpful and
    are trying.....Im staring at a large quantity of doggy do-do about to
    hit the fan just in front of my face....

    :(

    regards

    Thing
    PS not Exchange....RHAS3
     
    thing, Feb 3, 2005
    #11
  12. thing

    mark Guest

    Re: Has anybody tried greylisting as a spam deterent on a 150,000aday email server?

    T-Boy <> wrote in news:MPG.1c6d5d648d0a613d989a94
    @news.paradise.net.nz:

    >> We already have Sophos's mail solution, however it is not working to
    >> well and Sophos are being of little help....we are considering going
    >> back to spam assassin and add grey listing we usually stopped 95% just
    >> with spamassassin.

    >
    > I'm very surprised to hear that. I've found Sophos to provide
    > *excellent* service. Do you talk to to the Aussie support desk? In the
    > past I've logged calls to them twice and they've answered promptly and
    > phoned me back with a technician who has sorted problems immediately.
    >
    > I've also found their antivirus solution to be excellent - for email and
    > workstation protection.
    >
    > --
    > Duncan



    The last few times I've tried getting help out of Sophos I ended up
    concluding I'd have gotten better results from a monkey. I'm charitable
    though, and assume it is only their Australian operation that is clueless.
     
    mark, Feb 4, 2005
    #12
  13. Re: Has anybody tried greylisting as a spam deterrent on a 150,000 a day email server?

    In article <ctsddc$vlo$>, Steve <>
    wrote:

    >The problem with greylisting is that the method is well publicised, and
    >all 'decent' spammers circumvent it.


    And for those who don't know what the hell you're talking about:
    <http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/whitepaper.html>.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 4, 2005
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. james

    Has anybody tried speech to text software?

    james, Jan 5, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,607
    Wanderer
    Jan 6, 2005
  2. Harv
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    7,331
  3. Timo Schoeler

    Greylisting and ASA (5520)?

    Timo Schoeler, Mar 16, 2007, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    545
    Timo Schoeler
    Mar 16, 2007
  4. Paul D. Sullivan
    Replies:
    89
    Views:
    1,727
    John Turco
    May 30, 2007
  5. Knut Arvid Keilen

    I offer you 300.000.000.000 NOK by law. Who is the bidder?

    Knut Arvid Keilen, Dec 13, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    511
    Moldy Cheese
    Dec 13, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page