[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy



on Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 03:32:14PM +1000, Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 04:17:22AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > On your own system, for your own use, sure.  For general use?  Nope --
> 
> yes, definitely for general use.  it's just as effective for general use as it
> is for my personal use - in fact, if more people did the kind of stuff that i
> do then there wouldn't be a spam problem, because the spammers would just give
> up and go home.
> 
> 
> > Debian could never ship that.
> 
> i'm not asking for debian to ship it.  i gave some stats on spam
> blocking on my system, that's all.
> 
> i don't even think it can be shipped.  spam-blocking is a hands-on
> process, just like systems administration....sure, you can write tools
> to automate parts of it, but the job needs someone who understands the
> problem and knows what they are doing to look after it.

There are some sane defaults -- SA cutting at 8-10 -- which _could_ be
effectively shipped, as well as clamav.  Just these two tweaks as a
standard MTA config would cut a large amount of spam.

Yes, site-specific tweaks could be made to tighten the setup.  But a
working, effective, low false-positive system could be shipped turnkey.

> > Counting lines w/ 'RBL' on 'em I got 6016 messages.  I added your spam
> > and non-spam totals (or what appeared to be these) to get 55,117.
> 
> i already gave the total number of message delivery attempts, 29605.
> you basically doubled it when you added in the rejected attempts
> again.

What I looked at was this line:

    spam:non-spam (25512/29605) 86.17%                                        

...which if read as presented says you received 25,515 spam messages,
and 29,605 non-spam messages, or a total of 55,117 messages.

If you meant something different, you should have written something
different, such as "spam/total".


> > several thousand messages on the weight of originating IP block alone.
> 
> yes.  that's because IT WORKS.
> 
> i'm not interested in accepting mail from known open relays or open
> proxies or from dynamic IP pools.  

In the latter case, you'll be excluding the personal mail I just sent
you from my system, which happens to use a dynamic IP assignment for its
mailserver.  Never issued spam.  Totally clean configuration.  But
you're going to blackhole it.  Nice.


> i'm also not interested in receiving mail from certain counties
> (china, korea, brazil, and others).

This doesn't deserve response.


Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   Use a personal CSS stylesheet to promote Web usability:
     http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Download/UserContent.css
       http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Download/test-css.html

Attachment: pgpwphCFqLzQ4.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: