[68163] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W.Gilmore)
Wed Mar 3 18:45:43 2004
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0403031828070.30263@barney.robotics.net>
Cc: Patrick W.Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
From: Patrick W.Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:39:53 -0500
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
[I know it is not spam-l, but I still am interested. :-]
On Mar 3, 2004, at 6:32 PM, Nathan Allen Stratton wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Scott Call wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Nathan Allen Stratton wrote:
>>
>>> Have you look at graylisting, temp failing mail with a
>>> sender/receiver/IP
>>> you have not seen before?
>>
>> I don't know what the prevailing attitude is, but it seems to me
>> that 451ing unknown senders is a good way to get on the bad side of
>> sysadmins who have to deal with the backlog until your server decides
>> to
>> accept them.
>
> Well every valid to/from/ip gets thrown in mysql any new message with
> that
> same to/from/ip would never be delayed again. Also I temp fail before
> the
> DATA phase so body is not sent twice and I only temp fail for 5 min.
How's that working? Many complaints? How much spam did it kill (that
other things don't)?
Thought about changing it from to/from/ip to from/ip?
--
TTFN,
patrick
