SpamCop blocking challenges from our users

[Wazoo]

ChoiceMail has a sophisticated tools that compliment our C/R system. In fact our C/R system can be completely optional is user wants to turn it off.

We have something called "Permission Rules" which are basically filters that can react to message headers and execute certain actions. One of the actions is "Do not send a challenge message". Other include delete message, approve message and so on...

<snip>

I can easily write a rule in ChoiceMail that reacts to these headers and allow the message trough without challenge if SpamAssassin "thinks" that the message is 100% not spam. I can also easily write a rule that will not send a challenge is SpamAssassin "thinks" that the message is a certain spam. I am sure that we can somehow detect the "Novarg/Mydoom" messages somehow and create a rule that will not send the challenge out.

The point is that we are trying to allow user to be in full control and use any anti-spam tools that are available.

You describe a powerful and easily modified system. More power to you on that. The catch is, though you've provided the mechanism, what is the experience levels of the users that actually "play" with the settings? That "you" can program the checks and results is nice, but it takes the knowledge of both the incoming e-mail (structure and contents) and the insight as to what your available options actually do. To put it nicely, there are way too many folks out there using e-mail that just don't have clue one on the fine details of all that's actually involved. Just a hypothetical, as I'm sure there's no way for you to actually measure, but just how many of your users have actually sat down and made the types of "filtering" actions you've described? ... on a daily basis?

[dhjdhjdhj]

Sounds like Linux, doesn't it? <grin>

Seriously though, it's a very fair comment - and the answer is (at this point) "it depends". The mechanisms are there, we document how to do some of these things but, except for a few things, we don't "force" the user into doing these things. I think as we go forward, we will make more of these things be the default so it will get better over time. Our system is evolving fast, much of it based on feedback from customers and others.

You describe a powerful and easily modified system.  More power to you on that.  The catch is, though you've provided the mechanism, what is the experience levels of the users that actually "play" with the settings? 

[Wazoo]

Sounds like Linux, doesn't it? <grin>

Seriously though, it's a very fair comment - and the answer is (at this point) "it depends". The mechanisms are there, we document how to do some of these things but, except for a few things, we don't "force" the user into doing these things. I think as we go forward, we will make more of these things be the default so it will get better over time. Our system is evolving fast, much of it based on feedback from customers and others.

You describe a powerful and easily modified system.  More power to you on that.  The catch is, though you've provided the mechanism, what is the experience levels of the users that actually "play" with the settings? 

Hard to argue with this kind of positive attitude <g>

I had just fired up a copy of FireFox and had noted that they offered some handy tips on modifying behaviour. Thoughts were that there were some major assumptions made that folks would know how to perform some of the suggested mods, and though the write-ups suggested mountains of possibilities, the suggested mods onlt contained a single example .... it was after that when I caught the "user/I can program ....." remarks here. The correlation was just too massive not to pitch the query.

Good luck on working it all out. Though wondering if you do change some of the defaults, are you going to have irate customers when it comes to "yesterday, it did this .. today, it ......???" ..