Printable View
I just gave up on secondaries, my ISP and my smtp server are
pretty reliable and as you say the advantage is not worth the
extra spam.
I starting using Gabriel's spf code today, nothing worth
reporting yet, but I am hopeful.
I am also trying to use ratfs(1) to validate reverse
IP addresses so I can reject spam from DSL machines. This
is a shame but seems nescessary.
-Steve
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 08:53:41PM +0000, Steve Simon wrote:[color=blue]
> IP addresses so I can reject spam from DSL machines. This
> is a shame but seems nescessary.[/color]
It really isn't.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 06:16:28PM -0500, Michael Batchelor wrote:[color=blue]
> William Josephson wrote:[color=green]
> >On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 08:53:41PM +0000, Steve Simon wrote:[color=darkred]
> >>IP addresses so I can reject spam from DSL machines. This
> >>is a shame but seems nescessary.[/color]
> >
> >It really isn't.[/color]
>
> It really isn't a shame, or it really isn't necessary?[/color]
It really isn't necessary -- in fact it is actively
harmful as there a number of people (including some on
this list!) from whom I want to receive mail and who
send mail from DSL connected machines. Every so often
I consider more agressive filtering, but have found that
greylisting plus careful use of SMTP call back plus SPF
plus bayesian filtering kills all but a very few spams.
Actually, almost all of the occasional spam I do get
are via mailing lists at MIT and Princeton, so even if
the spam does originate from DSL and Cable modem
connected machines, it doesn't much matter by the time
it gets to me since I'm not going to dig through the
headers automatically.