Re: tmda (was Re: Attach filter)
On 2004-07-12, Steve Lamb penned:
>
> I'm not sure what Karsten had in mind here but let me give my
> first hand view on this piece. My current employment gives me
> access to TMDA in production use. In one instance a client of
> ours gets over 9,000 messages *a day*. Virtually all of it is
> spam. They have configured TMDA to C-R. So follow the math.
Implementing a C/R system without first running the mail through some
spam detection system is horribly irresponsible. As they're you're
client, I hope you're making some effort to educate them and/or provide
them with that option.
[snip]
> Mind you that the offical TMDA party line might be to use it as
> part of a grander scheme
I believe it is; at least, most of the folks on the tmda mailing list
believe this. I don't know if it's explicitly stated in the docs.
TMDA also implements nifty things like dated and keyword addresses, btw.
I honestly don't know if these are available through other sources.
> but some people have come here to this list to tell those of us
> with a little clue that C-R (in particular their broken
> implementation, not TMDA) was far superior than spam filtering and
> that spam filtering simple was not needed and a waste.
That's unfortunate.
--
monique
Reply to: