[Mimedefang] spamass-milter or mimedefang ?

[Matt Cramer]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Kelson Vibber wrote:

> At 09:50 AM 8/21/2003, Marcus Schopen wrote:
> >What are the basic differences between spamass-milter or mimedefang?
>
> I haven't looked into much detail on spamass-milter, but I can tell you
> that MIMEDefang is very flexible.

[...]

We used to use spamass-milter instead of MIMEDefang because I thought it
would be more "simple".  Well spamass-milter crashed under heavy load.  It
was so bad that I had a cron job running every MINUTE restarting
spamass-milter.  This was on HP-UX and under load of a 30K messages/day.
The flexibility and stability of MD make it worth taking the time to learn
it and configure it.  We dumped spamass-milter, and ditched the HP-UX for
linux, and MD hasn't even hiccupped ONCE in 6 months.  Plus now I can do
things like reject based on forged HELO, only filter/run SpamAss on
INCOMING mail, maintain a greylist (for domains that spammers like to
forge, I confirm that the sending relay reverse-resolves to a machine in
that domain), etc.

If one chooses to use spamass-milter, don't do it on anything other than
a linux machine that processes a couple of hundred messages per day.  Plus
spamass-milter is written in C++ (blech).


Matt

-- 
Matthew S. Cramer <mscramer at armstrong.com>          Office: 717-396-5032
Infrastructure Security Analyst                     Fax:    717-396-5590
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.                    Cell:   717-917-7099