Have you taken a look at IMgate? It's free software and requires minimal hardware on your end. There is also Declude which is the lowest price anti-spam gateway that I know of short of being free. It is loaded on the same server as your Imail. Both solutions have received good reviews in this forum.

----- Original Message ----- From: "PC Tech" <pctech@mybellybutton.com> To: <IMail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:26 PM Subject: RE: ORBSSRC: RE: [IMail Forum] Time to fix "Refuse NULL <> Senders" option!

> I know and am aware of the drawbacks. But it's a benefit versus risk thing. > I get more benefit from it than risk, so I do it. > > Percentage-wise the majority of the spam I get is from null senders. > Personally, I'd rather NOT have to use the null sender option. But, on the > other hand, I am not paying a mint for some damn anti-spam front end that > won't work well with null senders. *IF* they pass that legislation where > spammers will get fined $500 for each spam, then I will disable it and then > charge them for each and every spam that my users get. > > I have a ZERO tolerance policy on spam. > > # -----Original Message----- > # From: IMail_Forum-owner@list.ipswitch.com > # [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@list.ipswitch.com]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry > # Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 10:07 AM > # To: IMail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com > # Subject: RE: ORBSSRC: RE: [IMail Forum] Time to fix "Refuse NULL <> > # Senders" option! > # > # > # > # ># but no longer are. Same with refusing <>. It causes other postmasters > # ># troubles. > # >It only causes the postmasters that allow their mail users that SEND mail > # >with null headers problems the way I see it > # > # The problem arises if you send an E-mail to a non-existant user on one of > # our domains. If our mail server bounces the message back to you, > # your mail > # server is going to choke on it, and send it back to > # postmaster@one_of_our_domains.com. Then, we have to deal with your > # mistake. That's why many mail admins want to use this new > # dsn.rfc-ignorant.com test. > # > # >If every mail server blocked null senders, the problem would > # probably go away. > # > # Yes, but nobody would ever get any bounce messages. Bounce messages are > # there for a reason. > # > # >According to my logs, my mail server bounces between 5 and 10 > # messages a day > # >based on null sender. > # > # Have you checked to see how many of those are spam, and how many > # are bounce > # messages that you're making another postmaster deal with (perhaps the one > # that is going to block your mail server)? > # > # Even if they are all spam, how many spams do you get per day that > # don't use > # the NULL sender? I've just gone back a bit further, and of the past 68 > # spams we've received, not one has used a NULL sender. > # > # Of course, you are free to block NULL senders, just so long as you are > # aware of the possible consequences. If you know the drawbacks, and still > # want to do it, it's your choice. My goal is just to make sure > # that you and > # others are aware of the drawbacks, and why we feel it's a bad choice. > # > # -Scott > # > # Declude: Anti-spam and Anti-virus solutions for IMail. > http://www.declude.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >