Spam Filter ISP Forums : Feature Request https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/ Fri, 05 Jun 2026 21:36:06 +0000 Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:24:00 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 11.04 360 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=3185 <![CDATA[Spam Filter ISP Forums]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_images/web_wiz_forums.png https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/ <![CDATA[Feature Request : i am for that ! currently i am...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3274&title=feature-request#3274 Author: Guests
Subject: 3185
Posted: 17 March 2004 at 3:24pm

i am for that ! currently i am forced to block all <> or die ... ;-(

we just migrated from lotus notes, so there me be life after that..

any configurable <> option will do.

thanx in advance.

-eric-

]]> Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:24:00 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3274&title=feature-request#3274 <![CDATA[Feature Request : Nice... ASB ]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3222&title=feature-request#3222 Author: Guests
Subject: 3185
Posted: 15 March 2004 at 10:35am

Nice...

ASB

]]> Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:35:00 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3222&title=feature-request#3222 <![CDATA[Feature Request : =================What really needs...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3221&title=feature-request#3221 Author: Guests
Subject: 3185
Posted: 15 March 2004 at 10:33am

=================
What really needs to be done it that ALL the RFC's need to be tossed out and somehow the SMTP specification needs to be re-evaluated in it's entirety. 
=================

I definitely agree...

]]> Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:33:00 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3221&title=feature-request#3221 <![CDATA[Feature Request : Roberto, Perfect! Dan ]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3211&title=feature-request#3211 Author: Desperado
Subject: 3185
Posted: 14 March 2004 at 1:46pm

Roberto,

Perfect!

Dan

]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:46:00 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3211&title=feature-request#3211 <![CDATA[Feature Request : Would a SpamFilter.ini option...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3210&title=feature-request#3210 Author: LogSat
Subject: 3185
Posted: 14 March 2004 at 1:41pm

Would a SpamFilter.ini option for this feature (quarantine and tag) be acceptable? I don't see a huge demand for this, and if this and other hidden ini options are documented this may be simple to implement.

Roberto F.
LogSat Software

]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:41:00 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3210&title=feature-request#3210 <![CDATA[Feature Request : Roberto, That is correct. The...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3205&title=feature-request#3205 Author: Desperado
Subject: 3185
Posted: 14 March 2004 at 12:23pm

Roberto,

That is correct.  The Quarantine AND Tag would be Global ... I can't see any way this would cause any of our customers a problem but we may want to be able to "Brand" our tag ... IE "MagsSpamTag"  so a setting for the TagText would be nice but not life or death.

Regards,

Dan S.

]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:23:00 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3205&title=feature-request#3205 <![CDATA[Feature Request : Eric, Are you 100% sure you&#039;d...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3204&title=feature-request#3204 Author: LogSat
Subject: 3185
Posted: 14 March 2004 at 12:18pm

Eric,

Are you 100% sure you'd want this feature? Please note that many NDR emails come in with NULL senders. If you send an email to suport@logsat.com (note the misspell in support) you should get a NDR to let you know the email was not delivered. The MAIL FROM in that email most likely will be NULL (note that the From: header will instead be filled in). If you choose to reject or hide all emails with a null MAIL FROM you (and your users) will never know for example that your emails were not delivered.

Please see http://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/showmessage.asp?messageID=3203 for your other request, along with Dan's.

Please let us know what you think.

Roberto F.
LogSat Software

]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:18:00 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3204&title=feature-request#3204 <![CDATA[Feature Request : Hi Dan, Good idea on the &#034;have...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3203&title=feature-request#3203 Author: LogSat
Subject: 3185
Posted: 14 March 2004 at 12:12pm

Hi Dan,

Good idea on the "have their cake and it it too" piece. We're testing an internal build with that feature you requested, meaning having an entry in the unfiltered list like:

unfiltered_guy@hisdomain.com:TAG 

and tag only and deliver if that's the case.

We're strill thinking on how to easily implement the other request - Quarantine AND tag in the subject line. You'd want this to be global, right? One settings for all users?

Roberto F.
LogSat Software

]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:12:00 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3203&title=feature-request#3203 <![CDATA[Feature Request : Eric, I actually did some &#034;Soul...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3197&title=feature-request#3197 Author: Desperado
Subject: 3185
Posted: 14 March 2004 at 10:23am

Eric,

I actually did some "Soul Searching" on this one.  There is a reason to accept "Blank" senders. One reason is that many List Servers do not expose the sender.  Also a very important example is a bounce message or warning message.  Can you imagine the turmoil if virus warnings had valid return addresses? I don't even want to think about that because I have seen it first hand. I elected to break RFC in this case and flat out reject blank senders.  I do not see the issue you are referring to EXCEPT with AOL and we, as an ISP, were able to contact AOL and discuss the issue.  It seems that only some of their servers react that way and according to the person I spoke to, this was an artifact of the server and not by design.  I am hoping they will fix that but AOL is so huge that it falls into the category of the "headless monster".
 
When we send out a potentially "Politically turbulent" message to our users, we use a "Do Not Reply" address which forces the user to create a new message, rather than the convenience of hitting the reply button on his mail client.
 
Having said all that,  IF there was an option to "absorb" blank "From Addresses", I would use it but not to save bandwidth as much as to prevent Mail Loops or "Ping-Pongs".  It seems that every day, I find yet one more way for an accidental (?) mail loop to start.  WebShield, our Virus Scanning SMTP has a registry setting for "Max Loop Count".  This prevents the more obvious loops but there are way too many exceptions.  The Lotus Notes "Out Of Office" setting is a plague worse than the 17 year locust.  The headers get changed to the point that WebShield does not see the loop and all hell breaks loose when 2 people leave for vacation and set their out of office setting and then email each other that they will be out for a week.
 
But I am rambling ... I am not sure if a change to how the blank from is technically an easy change ... only LogSat knows that.  What I am going to look at now is ... Is there some Regular Expression that can get around this problem.  I think a global setting may have undesired effects.  What really needs to be done it that ALL the RFC's need to be tossed out and somehow the SMTP specification needs to be re-evaluated in it's entirety.  The RFC's do not address any of the new problems that forged addresses and spoofed IP's cause. Also, you need to make a career out of following the RFC threads to their actual source and then work forward from there.
 
Now Here is a real helpful request ... A SPELL CHECKER for the Forum!  Then I would not look as illiterate as I am.
 
This response is an example of why one should limit their Caffeine intake!
 
Regards, Dan S.
 
]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:23:00 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3197&title=feature-request#3197 <![CDATA[Feature Request : great thinking dan, a &#034;tag...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3195&title=feature-request#3195 Author: Guests
Subject: 3185
Posted: 14 March 2004 at 7:46am

great thinking dan, a "tag list option" where you can put users in ...

i also have a request :

how to accept a blank sender so the sending mailer host thinks, he`s done, but send the message to :null anyway.

the rfc says you must accept <> however due to the recent outbreaks, aol for example, retries the "user not found" bounce every 5 minutes on my servers, where the rcpt to: is also non-excistant at my server.

this would be a great bandwitdth saver. (accept and delete anyway)

 

]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:46:00 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=3185&PID=3195&title=feature-request#3195