|
Grex > Coop13 > #376: The problems with Grex, e-mail and spam | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 480 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 161 of 480:
| 
Dec 8 23:31 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:152: If Grex isn't meeting your needs, it may indeed be time to
move to another provider. No hard feelings.
Re resp:158: I believe mail that's forwarded without being stored
locally will still go through. I don't think Exim checks for disk
space in the mailbox directory unless it actually has to do a local
delivery.
|
keesan
|
|
response 162 of 480:
|
Dec 9 00:29 UTC 2006 |
Rane, spamassassin does not need any maintenance, and you don't even need to
keep a log in case it is too much trouble to look at a few pages a day listing
where your mail went (/dev/null, a spam folder, or inbox). Without adding
a few other filters that change once in a while, 10% of spam might slip
through.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 163 of 480:
|
Dec 9 05:03 UTC 2006 |
Listen to keesan, rane. If you don't want to change email addresses then
you should put in the effort, not expect grex staff to do it for you.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 164 of 480:
|
Dec 9 06:03 UTC 2006 |
Applied to everyone, it is an enormous total waste of time. It should be
as much of an ISP service as maintaining all the other aspects of the
system.
I guess my days on Grex are numbered, if that is the best Grex can do.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 165 of 480:
|
Dec 9 12:39 UTC 2006 |
Rane, I have used my grex account as my email address for over 10 years. I
have nowhere near the spam rate that you do, and it's certainly not from
"hiding" that address.
Perhaps your personal experience is different, but "applied to everyone" is
a gross overstatement. I actually have 3 grex accounts, one of which is my
give-it-freely address, and none of them are having the level of problems
you're reporting.
Yes, I routinely get spam and I just as routinely spend the
less-than-thirty-seconds it takes to delete it before I read the rest. Sindi
is correct that a smart spam filter would probably take care of most of it,
since it's pretty obvious from the subject line that it's spam.
She prefers to fiddle with a spam filter several times a day, I simply delete
the unwanted mail. Take your pick. Or quit using Grex for email. As a
retired professor, Grex is certainly not your only "free" option.
Or, you could make it a retirement project. Sounds like you don't think it's
worth your time, or anyone elses, to delete the stuff. So, perhaps you could
perfect personal spam filters and share them as Sindi does. Perhaps this is
another service you could perform for your not-for-profit.
In any case, all of us are coping, using various strategies, with the overall
spam problem. Some of us have higher thresholds than others for the nuisances
that come with belonging to a community. If Grex email is the most important
part of your membership here, then perhaps it IS time for you to start using
your UM account instead, and quit participating in the bbs. Somehow, from your
activities, I doubt that Grex = email for you.
|
remmers
|
|
response 166 of 480:
|
Dec 9 14:59 UTC 2006 |
I'm still working on a simple interface that will make enabling of spam
filtering simpler for users. I think that *is* a reasonable thing for the
staff to try to provide. But as I stated in an earlier response, I'm a
little pessimistic about how effective Grex-based spam filtering will be,
given the huge volume of spam nowadays. I'll take a look at Sindi's
sample procmailrc files, which employ some additional strategies.
By the way, my spam volume is, I suspect, comparable to Rane's -- well
over a hundred per day on Grex, plus several times more than that on my
primary mail server. The latter offers SpamAssassin-based spam filtering,
and nowadays it's pretty ineffective, despite being hosted at Pair
Networks, a major hosting service.
|
denise
|
|
response 167 of 480:
|
Dec 9 15:43 UTC 2006 |
Since I've learned how to delete spam easily [by using the dx-y instead of
each piece of mail individually], I'm finding the smam to be considerly less
annoying than it was before. Not to excuse the spam, though.
|
keesan
|
|
response 168 of 480:
|
Dec 9 17:29 UTC 2006 |
Rane, you don't need to fiddle with or maintain a very simple spam filter
based only on spamassassin, if you don't mind maybe 20% of the spams slipping
through it,. Set to three stars, it gives me no false positives (I don't lose
any real mail), set to two stars it gets an occasional mail from friends who
you could put on a whitelist. If most of your wanted mail comes from just
a few people, you could whitelist them and have their mail go to a separate
folder to be read first, along with mail from grex. I can set this up for
you if you like, and then you just copy it to .procmailrc. All John would
do is let you type 'change' to select to use this filter, and maybe give you
the opportunity to add the whitelist at the same time, unless he has other
ideas. I am sure you can manage it without him.
|
gull
|
|
response 169 of 480:
|
Dec 10 00:07 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:164: Grex isn't an ISP.
Personally, I find I don't see much spam in email addresses that I
don't list on a webpage or use as domain name contacts. Addresses that
I do one of those two things with quickly become spam magnets.
|
cross
|
|
response 170 of 480:
|
Dec 10 00:23 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #165; Suggesting that someone move on from grex becasue they have
a legitimate complaint is not very productive.
Look. I've been a sysadmin before; I'm qualified to say when I feel that
we're doing a substandard job. And we're doing a substandard job here. Part
of that is because the job is so hard, but part is because staff just doesn't
want to make any changes. Rane is right: each person doing spam filtering
*by themselves* is a huge waste of resources. Really, staff ought to get off
their duffs and do a better job, or let someone who is willing to do a better
job, and is capable, do it for them.
|
spooked
|
|
response 171 of 480:
|
Dec 10 02:48 UTC 2006 |
Dan is spot on with his comments about the status quo of individual user
responsibility for spam management being a huge waste of resources**, and
staff being slack here (and equally or more bad unwilling to change).
That's primarily why I resigned from staff. It is also a big reason why I
have informed staff I'm willing to rejoin staff - I want to change the
poor/apathetic/slack culture of Grex staff.
**FOOTNOTE: TO be fair to remmers, he is working on an opt-in
spam-filter solution which will be a lot better than the current no
solution default. I'm also happy to improve the opt-in solution where
possible if staff can agree to take me back on board (however, like most
things concerning staff on Grex, they are taking their time...)
|
cross
|
|
response 172 of 480:
|
Dec 10 14:45 UTC 2006 |
Like Mic, I have also volunteered to do a number of projects on grex. Also
like Mic, so far, all I've heard are cricket's chirping.
|
mary
|
|
response 173 of 480:
|
Dec 10 15:02 UTC 2006 |
(Whosh)
|
cross
|
|
response 174 of 480:
|
Dec 11 00:11 UTC 2006 |
Is that supposed to have meaning?
|
remmers
|
|
response 175 of 480:
|
Dec 11 14:35 UTC 2006 |
To recapitulate, and to slightly rephrase a response I entered in the
Agora system problems item: There is currently a system-wide
spam filter running - spamd, the "daemonized" version of SpamAssassin.
It works like this: Operating in conjunction with procmail, it reads
configuration files from the user's home directory (.procmailrc and a
few other things) to decide what to do with incoming mail messages for
that user. In particular, the user can decide how aggressive the
filtering should be. SpamAssassin also has Bayesian filtering features.
Sindi has it exactly right: What I've volunteered to do is write a
simple menu-style interface that makes it easy for a user to set this up
for his or her account.
The problem with this approach - and I can certainly understand Rane's
and others' concern - is that if you own the configuration files that
control how your spam filtering is done, you also own the job of keeping
them up-to-date. The fear that this could be a bothersome task is a
legitimate one. I've been experimenting the last few days with
SpamAssassin-based filtering in my own account, and I must say that my
experience contradicts Sindi's. The same filtering options that caught
over 90% of my spam a few months ago are now catching less than 20% of
it. I woke up this morning with over 100 uncaught spam messages that
had accumulated over the last day. If I'm going to make my filtering
more effective, I'll have to tune my SpamAssassin options, or add stuff
to my .procmailrc, or something. Now, I'm something of a computer geek
and enjoy tinkering, so I might find that a bit fun, even. But I can
certainly understand why people don't want to bother with it.
So that raises the question: What can Grex do on a global level,
independent of any user preferences, to control the spam problem? And
do we have the resources - computing power and personnel - to do it?
Offhand, I don't know the answer to that.
|
cross
|
|
response 176 of 480:
|
Dec 11 16:10 UTC 2006 |
Computing power? Yes. Personnel? No. Culture? No.
|
remmers
|
|
response 177 of 480:
|
Dec 11 16:38 UTC 2006 |
Boy, we really suck, don't we.
|
tod
|
|
response 178 of 480:
|
Dec 11 18:16 UTC 2006 |
I'd venture to say that so long as Cindy is tweaking her script then it
wouldn't be too much scripting to propagate those rulesets globally.
Computing power? I dunno..I think grex email is a bad idea altogether.
|
keesan
|
|
response 179 of 480:
|
Dec 11 18:44 UTC 2006 |
Remmers, have you set spamassassin to three points instead of the default five
points? I also set my .procmailrc to put anything on the spamcop list in a
/spam folder, after running spamd, along with anything with 2 points (which
is sometimes real mail). Some real mail ends up in /spam folder.
My tweaks are aimed at the residual 20% or so. I change the stock spam filter
every couple of days, for instance, and throw out HTML with Windows charsets
or 3D or embedded images (some of which comes from people I know).
|
keesan
|
|
response 180 of 480:
|
Dec 11 18:45 UTC 2006 |
Remmers, can you set up a script that will automatically update .procmailrc
for everyone using spamd, if you do want to keep tweaking? Or just include
that option in a change program (update spam filter)?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 181 of 480:
|
Dec 11 20:11 UTC 2006 |
You still have to check all your mail, spam and all, before deleting, don't
you? Or do you send any of it just to dev/null without checking?
|
keesan
|
|
response 182 of 480:
|
Dec 11 20:14 UTC 2006 |
I send things to /dev/null but keep a non-verbose log which I check every few
days in case my filter threw out something it should not. It is much more
aggressive than spamassassin itself, which has never thrown out anything it
should not, using 3 points. I send 2-point mail to a spam folder, and about
1% of the time that is real mail. Ditto for anything on sorbs or spamcop
lists. My aggressive filter is somewhat tempered by a long whitelist of any
friend whose mail got dumped previously by the filter. But you can just use
spamassassin without a log file, set to 3 points, and probably catch 90%.
|
keesan
|
|
response 183 of 480:
|
Dec 11 20:19 UTC 2006 |
The log file is a list of where the mail came from (The 'From' line, which
spammers often fake), the subject line (spammers tend to use creative lines
like 'Hi' or 'Re: Re: Re:'), and where it went (/var/mail/keesan, or
/dev/null, or /var/mail/keesan/spam). Every few days I check over the
/dev/null lines quickly and then delete the log file, at which time it is
around 50K (pages and pages). If you are curious why things go to /dev/null
you can set the log file to verbose and it will tell you which filter(s) the
mail passed through and where it was caught. I used to do that until the spam
count increased. If you notice a lot of the same spam slipping through for
a few days, you can add your own filter before spamassassin.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 184 of 480:
|
Dec 11 20:19 UTC 2006 |
But you still scan the subject of everything, don't you? That's all I do.
I suppose your system just prevents your inbox from filling - or, does it?
I don't expect a perfect system is possible, but so much spam is so obviously
in *classes* of spam, and getting rid of those immediately would be a great
help. Users that want to could keep tweaking a separate filter for themselves.
|
keesan
|
|
response 185 of 480:
|
Dec 11 20:25 UTC 2006 |
My system sends 90% of spam to /dev/null and most of the rest to a spam
folder. I scan really quickly, just what went to /dev/null and came in less
than 2 copies. Nothing to move or delete or save afterward, it is already
gone. This week I got one false positive, since I filter on anything
that looks like a webpage and the sender designed it to look like a webpage
but will consider next time sending out holiday greetings as a text message
with the link to a website.
|