Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please
On Thursday 23 June 2005 07:17, Glenn Maynard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > Yes, it is, if every suggestion for "improvement" is a poor one. Lack
> > > of good ideas does not justify bad ones; not having any good ideas does
> > > not invalidate or in any way reduce the value of pointing out the bad
> > > ones.
> > Currently gluck.debian.org and murphy.debian.org seem to be the main
> > sources of spam I receive. Given the discussion here it seems that my
> > best option for reducing spam is to receive my mailing list messages
> > through another account and have my main mail server reject all mail from
> > gluck and murphy.
> > Receiving huge volumes of spam is a bad idea. Lack of what you consider
> > to be good ideas for dealing with spam does not justify reading it.
> That's wonderful, but what I said stands.
It has already been established that using the CBL with SMTP 55x responses is
a suitable anti-spam measure. It will get extremely few false-positives (to
be on the CBL a server has to send mail to a spam-trap address), the CBL is
apparently easy to be removed from, and no mail will be lost (legitimate mail
will be bounced back to the origin).
The current situation is that some DDs are filtering mail from gluck and
rejecting it if spam criteria are matches. This causes bounces to innocent
third-parties thus making gluck a source of problems on the net.
Some people apparently teergrub gluck too, this is the wrong approach and
causes problems for the administrators. But with the current situation I can
understand why people want to do it.
Anyway I'll now try blocking gluck. Don't send mail to my @debian.org address
if you want to contact me.
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page