new spam wave.
Problem reported by Eric Bourland - February 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM
SmarterMail 13.2

I'm getting demolished by Rachael and Dr. Oz. For example:
Return-Path: <charlespage@midstatelumber.jensennutralogics.com>
Received: from midstatelumber.jensennutralogics.com (midstatelumber.jensennutralogics.com []) by tarsier.viviotech.net with SMTP;
   Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:35:15 -0500
To: <eb@hwaet.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:35:07 -0800
From: Rachael Lost Without Trying
Reply-to: <PageCharlesg@jensennutralogics.com>
Subject: Oz and Rachael team up, show of the year
Message-ID: <sYBPpETFCsYfYNeSMQXAN.20150224110550708@midstatelumber.jensennutralogics.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252"
X-SmarterMail-Spam: SPF_Pass, DK_None, DKIM_None
X-SmarterMail-TotalSpamWeight: 0
Is anybody else experiencing this? Some of my clients are complaining about this renewed spam incursion. I use Bruce's updated antispam settings as set forth in his Smartermail document.
Spam detection and deflection seem to be the hobgoblin that continually, repeatedly affects my SmarterMail server. I and other folks have brought up this topic more than a few times. I'm going to go back and review as many AntiSpam threads as I can find. There have been more than a few.
What am I missing? What can I say to clients who indicate that they want to remove their email from my SmarterMail server and go with a corporate solution like Google?
Thanks, as always, for advice or ideas.

2 Replies

Reply to Thread
David Fisher Replied
February 25, 2015 at 11:40 AM
Hi Eric,
  Yea I don't have any solution yet, I am still diving into this, but so far others haven't been complaining, so I wonder if it is just something we are both doing wrong?
Steve Reid Replied
February 26, 2015 at 6:33 AM
I use SpamAssassin in a box to supplement the antispam built into Smartermail. We have great results and very few spam gets through. As with any email server though, due diligence needs to be spent to fine tune it all.

Reply to Thread