2 ms·

It opens with some fair points why somebody might not, but the main reason —perhaps on par with the constant security headaches— isn't there. You will never blo

It opens with some fair points why somebody might not, but the main reason —perhaps on par with the constant security headaches— isn't there. You will never block spam as effectively as Google, Microsoft, FastMail, etc. They see [for lack of a better word] infinite times more spam and ham than you'll ever be able to train your little Spam Assassin database, and millions of users to sort through it. Email without spam control is not a pleasant experience.

acallaghan 5y ago
This is a valid point - The setup I used integrates SpamAssassin for the basic setup which would get a fair number. There’s a way to learn from listening to when you tag a message as spam that I didn’t cover in my article. But yeah, you’d never do as well as spam protection as the big companies, but is that really such a deal breaker? Maybe if more people like us ran their own infra for email then we’d have better and stronger tools for spam protection?
jjav 5y ago
> You will never block spam as effectively as Google, Microsoft, FastMail, etc. Well I certainly do, more effectively. I don't do anything special, it's just that gmail isn't that good. gmail gets a ton of false positives and to add insult to injury they also let spam through occasionally. My self-hosted infrastructure lets spam through at about the same rate as gmail, but my false-positive rate is orders of magnitude superior.