Should spam control be on the server side or client side for business hosting?

[blackhorse]

There are a debate that for the business hosting, the clients should install client side spam control on their desktops instead of using the server side spam control.

The reasons:

1) The server side spam control doesn't work well. If it is set up too strict, it may block off some important business emails. If it is set up too lose, it will not block most of the spam anyway.

2) If the server side spam control doesn't block any spam, just mark it as possible spam, it could be done easily with client side spam control software too.

3) The business client should have the client side spam control software on anyway with or without server side spam control, so if they have the client side spam control, the server side spam control doesn't help too much.

Any advices?

Thanks!

[JPnyc]

Personally I like client side filtering and I like to adjust it myself. And even WITH that, you still have to watch the spam folder. Ham mail does get there.

[blackhorse]

It is easy to install spam control at the server side but we think the best solution is client side control and individual adjust too. We have no difficulties to convice the tech oriented clients.

But some clients they don't want to do anything themselves (they are kind like "just make it work for me" guy). They want the server side spam control to block off the spam for them and that is all. They claimed that their old hosting did this for them and asked why we couldn't do that.

But how can a usually general auto set up server side spam control tool can be sure that the emails it blocks are really spam not important business emails? There is good chance their old hosting block off their rightful emails too. But with their old hosting did this anyway, it is hard for us to convice the clients that we suggest them to use client side spam control and adjust it themselves is better approach.

In the hotmail example, most php generated email such as the sign up email from this forum may fall into the spam folder.

Is it the trend that we may have to install the server side spam control even we think client side indivdually adjust control is better?

[MarkR]

Personally I think that spam filtering should be done in a user-controllable way. This means

• Don't reject spam (unless it has been sent via a MTA which violates standards - for example invalid return address, broken MTA etc)

• DO mark suspected spam as such

• Allow them to create a rule which moves this spam into another folder, optionally, whitelisting people on their contact list

• DO throw away virus-infected emails and worms immedaitely, but DON'T send automatic replies, as 99% of the time they forge their sender address.

I have lost count of the number of messages I've got

Hello, this is broken-mail-server.somecrapcompany.com, you've sent a virus to one of our users etc etc.

To complain contact [e-mail]

Mark

[vaaaska]

I think a more realistic approach is both. A company might not be nimble enough to do it for themselves well enough. But they should have some control. Of course, it takes money to try to insure you don't get hammered...and it's likely money well spent.

[JPnyc]

Well in my hotmail acct. I have it set so that only those on my contact list ever reach the inbox. I don't want ANY spam at all, and that works. Earthlink mail has the same. Yahoo's spam filter is tied with Netscape's and AOL's for the worst of the freebies.

[JPnyc]

MarkR wrote:

Personally I think that spam filtering should be done in a user-controllable way. This means

• Don't reject spam (unless it has been sent via a MTA which violates standards - for example invalid return address, broken MTA etc)

• DO mark suspected spam as such

• Allow them to create a rule which moves this spam into another folder, optionally, whitelisting people on their contact list

• DO throw away virus-infected emails and worms immedaitely, but DON'T send automatic replies, as 99% of the time they forge their sender address.

I have lost count of the number of messages I've got

Mark

That's the approach I like.

[pohopo]

I think you should use a mix of both where the server side would not be as strict so you don't lose the emails you might really want.

[cgraz]

We've set up company email servers with spam control on linux. It automatically whitelists everyone in their address books. The spam that is "uncertain" needs to be flagged by the user, and the program gets better and better at identifying spam as this process continues. It also filters for virus' and spyware before delivering. Oh, and the user has a quarantine that they can browse through occasionally to see if any real emails were marked as spam. They can notify the program and it will improve it's filtering.

[maddog720]

Server, but the client should be able to modify it.

[dalecosp]

Server side. Offensive MTA's shouldn't even be allowed to get past 'EHLO'.

That, and an agressive program of intentional bloodshed is the only way we'll ever beat the spam problem. BTW, I'm back from a week in the former USSR, where I assassinated a small number of offenders by forcing pirated MS Office CD's and "Canadian" manufactured Cialis down their throats whilst reading them an email text by "Kaila, a young hottie new to their area with a webcam" .... 😃

[Weedpacket]

Wot, no stock tips?

[dalecosp]

Weedpacket wrote:

Wot, no stock tips?

Well, yah; you have to find the lousy buggers somehow.... 😉 😃