[lug] ISP for antispam recommendations?

[Daniel Webb]

Any place that gives you a shell account with a dialup is going to have
procmail (I would hope).  Procmail is your friend.  A nice procmail spam
filter is SpamBouncer:
http://www.spambouncer.org

One problem I have had with it is that it is sometimes too strict, sending
one or two good messages in the the "block" folder.  If you have important
contacts you don't want to even be delayed until you get around to
scanning the blocks folder, you can use procmail to send those to the
inbox before any other scanning takes place.  Spambouncer is a nice way to
get into procmail with a less steep learning curve.  It is very easy to
set up, and you don't need to know procmail to get it going.  It looks
from the web site that the work on it isn't as active as it used to be.
Maybe that's because it's "good enough" now.

Also, you said in one of your other emails that it took a very long time
to delete 200 spams.  What mail program are you using?  Hotmail?  If you
are sending complaints to the upstream provider on each one, I can
understand it.  I just hope you're not using a Windows mail program :)

Are you a regular newgroup poster?  Why are you getting so much spam?


On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, D. Stimits wrote:

> I'm wondering if anyone here has an ISP in the Boulder/Longmont area
> that offers customized front-ends so that I could set up a personal
> blacklist of domains or senders to reject? I want it at the ISP level
> because I don't want to spend the bandwidth to download the 200 or so
> spams I get per day. Even if I don't read them and I delete as fast as I
> can, each morning I would have to spend at least half an hour repeatedly
> hitting the delete button. Lately I've reported them all to spamcop, my
> ISP claims that use blackhole lists, but they unfortunately seem to
> override it in the worst cases. I'm thinking it might be time to dump my
> ISP for someone that actually helps. In my location only 56k is
> available, there are no lines capable of DSL here, and so far cable
> modem service is non-existent. I consider the wireless solutions
> inferior due to the desire to have consistent low-latency connections
> (and last time I checked, less than a year ago, I was at the edge of
> normal range anyway).
>
> D. Stimits, stimits at idcomm.com
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
>