Janne Peltonen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 07:47:28AM -0400, Jorey Bump wrote: > >> If you don't get much spam, sieve vacation is suitable. > > But how much is much, in your opinion? Say, 4 spam messages per day per user, > with 50 000 users? Would that be much? If, during summer, 25% of our > users were to have vacation active at any given time, that'd result in > 50 000 vacation spams per day... In my opinion, no amount of backscatter is acceptable, so I don't allow user-configurable autoresponders or forwarding. My antispam measures have reduced the amount that makes it to the user's inbox to about 5/week, so I will make a rare exception, but only if I configure it myself. Forwarding has proven to be more risky than autoresponses, because agressive ESPs can create a temporary DoS to their sites for the entire server. This is particularly frustrating when the cause is your own user marking a forwarded message as spam. On systems that I use but don't manage, autoresponders and forwarding do cause problems, and servers get publicly blacklisted regularly. There is also an increase in volume caused by the backscatter from autoresponses, affecting both bandwidth and storage needs. That said, both features can be useful and even justifiable, but have fallen into disfavor due to the problems they cause. RFC 3834 compliance and continual evaluation of your antispam measures will help. Unfortunately, demand for these features often has a political component that can affect you professionally, so only you can decide what's best. ---- Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/ Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/twiki List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
